"In 1946, legislators passed the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the way that regulatory agencies carry out legislation. That law both gives agencies discretion in setting up laws, but holds them accountable for carrying out Congress’s intentions."
If a president chooses not to immediately implement a law, then Congress has the power to pass another law which includes a specific timeframe for implementation and similar related requirements.
Congress is too dysfunctional to act.
Therefore, Obama can execute the already-passed law with a good deal of latitude and discretion.
So the President is a dictator who can selectively ignore congress and the laws it has passed? A dictator who also has the power of the legislature to rewrite and change laws he does not like?
The executive branch does have some discretion with how it executes portions of the law but it does have the discretion to completely ignore portions of the law.
Enforcement discretion would be modifying the amounts charged via fines. This is not that. This is the executive branch saying that because it feels congress is dysfunctional it is usurping the power of congress to change the law.
Even if congress did pass a new law to force the president to enforce the law as written hr could simply delay that law too.
Impeach Obama? Never going to happen. His supporters have been too successful in smearing opposition to the president as being a form of racism.
The media didn't turn on him after the Justice Department subpoenaed journalists records looking for leakers so why would they turn now?
Democrats in Congress would never support impeachment either.
I can't think of anything that the President could do that would result in an impeachment from a Democratic controlled senate.
I know it's never going to happen, but it's still what I would want to see, even if realistically I won't see it.
For what it's worth, I used to be an Obama supporter. However, the press intimidation thing and the NSA stuff made me do a complete 180.
I'm pretty sure you guys are tossing around impeachment a little leisurely. Usually you can impeach a president when they personally break a law. Like Bill Clinton Lying under oath, Nixon covering up a crime. Andrew Jackson violated a law passed specifically to weaken his power. You'll be hard pressed to get anywhere impeaching a president for doing things that are part of powers imbued by laws passed...
I think Obama should be impeached for violating the Oath of Office to "uphold and defend the Constitution." Violation of this oath is considered a "high crime" according to the Constitution and thus a valid reason for impeachment.
From what I understand of this, the reason he put the delay on the law is that business owners were saying the'd be unable to comply with the law as written.
Could this be read as Obama confirming a law will be faithfully executed without effectively signing a crime wave into existence?
The biggest problem is usually when a law this big gets made and passed there are tons of adjustments made as they attempt to execute the law (lest you think all of these laws and programs come out perfectly the first time. Unfortunately, with the house not really willing to do the fine tuning process (I.E. just throw it all out) that isn't able to happen which is one of the problems the health care law faces.
I'm pretty sure you guys are tossing around impeachment a little leisurely. Usually you can impeach a president when they personally break a law. Like Bill Clinton Lying under oath, Nixon covering up a crime. Andrew Jackson violated a law passed specifically to weaken his power. You'll be hard pressed to get anywhere impeaching a president for doing things that are part of powers imbued by laws passed...
I think Obama should be impeached for violating the Oath of Office to "uphold and defend the Constitution." Violation of this oath is considered a "high crime" according to the Constitution and thus a valid reason for impeachment.
That's kinda like someone attempting to use their interpretation of the bible on other people. Good luck proving any of that ever in a court (let alone the senate :-p)
The biggest problem is usually when a law this big gets made and passed there are tons of adjustments made as they attempt to execute the law (lest you think all of these laws and programs come out perfectly the first time. Unfortunately, with the house not really willing to do the fine tuning process (I.E. just throw it all out) that isn't able to happen which is one of the problems the health care law faces.
Is that a case of dysfunction or the system working as designed?
Also the house passed a bill allowing for the one year delay but they made it apply to individuals and employers, the Obama administration only wanted to delay implementation for employers. A bill that the president said he would veto.
So if the House was willing to modify the law per the president's wishes how is that dysfunctional?
Again, is thwarting the will of a president of the opposing party normal or a sign of dysfunction in Washington?
What is dysfunctional (in my opinion) is when members of party A rally around any member of party A accused of wrongdoing while simultaneously piling on any member of party B who is accused of wrongdoing. The dysfunction in Washington is caused by politicians who put party affiliation ahead of all else.
I think Obama should be impeached for violating the Oath of Office to "uphold and defend the Constitution." Violation of this oath is considered a "high crime" according to the Constitution and thus a valid reason for impeachment.
That's kinda like someone attempting to use their interpretation of the bible on other people. Good luck proving any of that ever in a court (let alone the senate :-p)
As I said, I didn't think it was realistic. Just something that I think is the correct/ethical thing to do. Unfortunately, correct/ethical doesn't always work in the real world.
Clearly we build our own utopia where a ruling class of sacrificial thralls are created to do what the underoverlord wants while in office and then accept their death afterwords.
Really even Iraq is not a impeachable offense in my opinion. The only thing done so far that I think should be an impeachable offense is the torture.
Depends on whether you think the administration lied to Congress to justify the attack (which is basically what they accused Clinton of doing w/ respect to Lewinsky), or they honestly were so deluded that they believed the crap they were spewing.
Our two most recent presidents have continued the practice of spying on Americans and curtailing our rights under the guise of 'fighting terrorrists'. When asked where they derive the authority to do this they often state that protecting the American people is their primary job as president. Constitutionally, is their support for this notion?
Really even Iraq is not a impeachable offense in my opinion. The only thing done so far that I think should be an impeachable offense is the torture.
Depends on whether you think the administration lied to Congress to justify the attack (which is basically what they accused Clinton of doing w/ respect to Lewinsky), or they honestly were so deluded that they believed the crap they were spewing.
The Lewinsky lying took place while under oath. The Iraq war lies did not take place under oath, huge difference from a legal point of view.
Our two most recent presidents have continued the practice of spying on Americans and curtailing our rights under the guise of 'fighting terrorrists'. When asked where they derive the authority to do this they often state that protecting the American people is their primary job as president. Constitutionally, is their support for this notion?
The Ninth and Tenth amendments imply that there is no support for the notion. In addition, no where in the Constitution does it say that the Bill of Rights is null and void in cases of war/national emergency/etc. In fact, the only time I can see this taking place in the past was during the Civil War, when half the country was under the state of open rebellion. We are no where near that situation now. We aren't even in as much danger as we were during World War II, and we didn't do anything near as bad then with the exception of the Japanese internment camps, and those were found to be illegal, albeit long after the fact.
Plus, the idea that Constitutional rights can be suspended for "fighting terrorism" is a huge can of worms that cannot and should not be opened. For example, the vast majority of terrorists in recent years have all been Muslim. If we want to fight terrorism, why not ban Islam and deport all Muslims? That certainly would prevent at least openly Muslim terrorists from doing anything on US soil. Yes, that runs afoul of the First Amendment, but it's all good in the name of "fighting terrorism."
The Lewinsky lying took place while under oath. The Iraq war lies did not take place under oath, huge difference from a legal point of view.
I had assumed the Iraq war lies were done under oath, or were they not sworn in when presenting their data to Congress?
As far as I know the Iraq war lies were presented to both Congress and the UN not under oath. There is also the caveat that the person doing the speaking (Collin Powell at the UN, can't recall who spoke to Congress) did not know they were lies when they were spoken. Even foreign nation intelligence agencies believed the lies to be true based on their own operations. It was only much later we found out otherwise.
I'm a bit sad I read this so late. I'm interested in this idea that the President is effectively rewriting the law / defying congress if he doesn't promptly execute the law and this could be used to impeach them?
Could the Congress pass a law that couldn't be implemented? Like a logical trap where no matter what the President does he couldn't execute it. I realize that you need an 3/4ths majority to pass such a law, otherwise PotUS could just veto it. It's just something that my mind was wondering about while reading the discussion.
Could the Congress pass a law that couldn't be implemented? Like a logical trap where no matter what the President does he couldn't execute it. I realize that you need an 3/4ths majority to pass such a law, otherwise PotUS could just veto it. It's just something that my mind was wondering about while reading the discussion.
Continue on.
2/3 majority, actually, to override the veto.
I also suspect that if the President were faced by such a law, he/she could use the courts to challenge it and thus couldn't be impeached until the courts decide the validity of the law. Presumably, the courts would declare a law that cannot be executed a null and void law and nothing will happen.
ahh, I always forget how much of what percentage they need to do such things.
It's just something that makes me wonder about the reasoning being argued. One would have to assume that the opposite is possible, and for some odd reason my mind is telling me that it's happened before, that Congress can also take the PotUS to court and have them enforce a law.
ahh, I always forget how much of what percentage they need to do such things.
It's just something that makes me wonder about the reasoning being argued. One would have to assume that the opposite is possible, and for some odd reason my mind is telling me that it's happened before, that Congress can also take the PotUS to court and have them enforce a law.
I think they tried to do this with the DoMA, but somehow it didn't go all the way though. I forget.
Let's have some conspiracy theory fun during both of President Obama's terms he performed the oath of office twice (once publicly and once privately) During both public events where he recited the oath he flubbed.
Examples
Now if I was an AM talk show host who selling legacy seeds and gold every commercial break I would say he's never taken the oath so it doesn't matter if he follows the laws =]
Executive orders can not be used to tweak a law. They only have an impact on the executive branch and serve as rules and guidance for implementing laws passed by congress and signed by the President.
A president can not sign a law granting X to Y and then use an Executive Order to grant X to Z instead.
Comments
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/07/the-white-house-keeps-changing-obamacare-is-that-legal/
The executive branch does have some discretion with how it executes portions of the law but it does have the discretion to completely ignore portions of the law.
Enforcement discretion would be modifying the amounts charged via fines. This is not that. This is the executive branch saying that because it feels congress is dysfunctional it is usurping the power of congress to change the law.
Even if congress did pass a new law to force the president to enforce the law as written hr could simply delay that law too.
For what it's worth, I used to be an Obama supporter. However, the press intimidation thing and the NSA stuff made me do a complete 180. I think Obama should be impeached for violating the Oath of Office to "uphold and defend the Constitution." Violation of this oath is considered a "high crime" according to the Constitution and thus a valid reason for impeachment.
Could this be read as Obama confirming a law will be faithfully executed without effectively signing a crime wave into existence?
Also the house passed a bill allowing for the one year delay but they made it apply to individuals and employers, the Obama administration only wanted to delay implementation for employers. A bill that the president said he would veto.
So if the House was willing to modify the law per the president's wishes how is that dysfunctional?
What is dysfunctional (in my opinion) is when members of party A rally around any member of party A accused of wrongdoing while simultaneously piling on any member of party B who is accused of wrongdoing. The dysfunction in Washington is caused by politicians who put party affiliation ahead of all else.
Might change who seeks power, though. Not necessarily for the better...
Our two most recent presidents have continued the practice of spying on Americans and curtailing our rights under the guise of 'fighting terrorrists'. When asked where they derive the authority to do this they often state that protecting the American people is their primary job as president. Constitutionally, is their support for this notion?
Plus, the idea that Constitutional rights can be suspended for "fighting terrorism" is a huge can of worms that cannot and should not be opened. For example, the vast majority of terrorists in recent years have all been Muslim. If we want to fight terrorism, why not ban Islam and deport all Muslims? That certainly would prevent at least openly Muslim terrorists from doing anything on US soil. Yes, that runs afoul of the First Amendment, but it's all good in the name of "fighting terrorism." I had assumed the Iraq war lies were done under oath, or were they not sworn in when presenting their data to Congress?
Could the Congress pass a law that couldn't be implemented? Like a logical trap where no matter what the President does he couldn't execute it. I realize that you need an 3/4ths majority to pass such a law, otherwise PotUS could just veto it. It's just something that my mind was wondering about while reading the discussion.
Continue on.
I also suspect that if the President were faced by such a law, he/she could use the courts to challenge it and thus couldn't be impeached until the courts decide the validity of the law. Presumably, the courts would declare a law that cannot be executed a null and void law and nothing will happen.
It's just something that makes me wonder about the reasoning being argued. One would have to assume that the opposite is possible, and for some odd reason my mind is telling me that it's happened before, that Congress can also take the PotUS to court and have them enforce a law.
Examples
Now if I was an AM talk show host who selling legacy seeds and gold every commercial break I would say he's never taken the oath so it doesn't matter if he follows the laws =]
A president can not sign a law granting X to Y and then use an Executive Order to grant X to Z instead.