OFFLINE

these are snippets from a politico article.




Obama’s cramped circumstances, according to numerous veterans of previous White Houses and other experts, highlight his urgent need to reinvent his presidency — discarding the Congress-focused strategy of the first two years and coming up with new and more creative ways to exercise power and set the national agenda.

“He needs to be CEO of America,” said former White House chief of staff John Podesta, an Obama sympathizer who ran his transition to power after the 2008 election and is now urging him to dramatically refashion his presidency.

The West Wing makeover, as Podesta and others see it, would involve Obama no longer “being Velcroed to the Hill” and giving more attention to powers of the presidency that don’t involve signing bills into law.

Among those powers: executive orders that advance Obama’s agenda without involving Congress, new policy ideas that transcend Washington’s usual left and right divisions and speeches that summon people to meet the long-term challenges facing the country, even, or especially, when the remedies involve more than actions by the federal government.

Former president Bill Clinton, who similarly had to abandon a legislative approach after Democrats were bounced from power in 1994, was the most creative president in the modern era at using the powers of the executive branch in legitimate ways that nonetheless expressly served his own political ends as he prepared for reelection in 1996.


now this isn't something i fully appreciated under bush (admittedly), but now in retrospect, this kind of stuff is worrisome to me, regardless of what letter follows the president's name. i mean do you hear the language in this article? they (as well as the center for american progress) are actively encouraging the president to circumvent the congress, and use executive powers(which have an incredibly vague constitutional footing to begin with) in order to achieve his agenda. and this is something presidents have been doing forever. it was by executive order that all the japanese americans were rounded up into concentration camps. what do you think about this?

OFFLINE

OFFLINE

Its hard to say really.  We vote for Congress and "assume' they are there to work the will or the people and are looking out for our best interests.  So in one way we should want everything to go through Congress.

However we vote for a president too.  And we hope he would work in our best interests as well.

I've never been real crazy for the idea of executive orders.  However there are times it may be necessary...like times of national emergency.  Executive decision is vital during those times so we can move for the safety and security of our nation.  We need that in order to avoid getting bogged down for months in Congress awaiting their decision while the enemy (whomever it is) wreaks havoc on us.  And I had always thought executive orders were ONLY for times such as those.  What does Podesta want Obama to use his executive decision for if not for National Emergency?  And does the President have the authority to do that?

Btw...while rounding up Japanese citizens )in those days after Pearl Harbor) sound like something Nazis would do, it should be pointed out that many, MANY Americans citizens were fearful of invasion, infiltration, spies and sabotage.  And many Americans supported rounding us the Japanese at that time.  What we are hearing on tv and reading in books today about that time is a lot of PC viewpoints that people mostly did not have back then.  FDR (not my favorite President btw) imo did what he felt he must do for the safety of the nation.  And statistically, out of the many Japanese people he did round up, at least some...a few perhaps, may have be saboteurs.  Had some blown up bridges, or attacked our infrastructure and FDR had done nothing to prevent it (for PC reasons), he would be viewed as uncaring and would not have been doing his job.

Yes, there may have been better options when viewed by we who have come many decades later.  But at that time, what was he to do?

I feel the same about this act as I do about Andrew Jackson's removal of the indians in the south.  One reason he had to remove those people was to ensure the safety of his own people (many of whom had endured massacre and attack by indians).  Now Jackson's method of removal was harsh...brutal even.  But even then, he had reasons for hating the Indians people of that time.

FDR and most of America had very GOOD reason for hating the Japanese of that time as well.  Ask most WW2 American vets (if you can find any) who were at Pearl Harbor.

And many of us today fear and intensely dislike Muslims after what happened on 9/11.  Its just the way it is.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
What does Podesta want Obama to use his executive decision for if not for National Emergency?  And does the President have the authority to do that?

Btw...while rounding up Japanese citizens )in those days after Pearl Harbor) sound like something Nazis would do, it should be pointed out that many, MANY Americans citizens were fearful of invasion, infiltration, spies and sabotage.  And many Americans supported rounding us the Japanese at that time.  What we are hearing on tv and reading in books today about that time is a lot of PC viewpoints that people mostly did not have back then.  FDR (not my favorite President btw) imo did what he felt he must do for the safety of the nation.  

yes, they want the presidency to execute executive orders for a litany of things, not related to any kind of emergency situations. here's what wikipedia has to say on the constitutionality.


"Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4, that has been construed as justification for the legal weight of Executive orders. Those Executive Orders that are not authorized through Congressional acts frequently contain some other purported justification such as the reference above to "executive power" in Article II, Section 1. These justifications have largely gone untested by the Courts for their validity however."

as for your statements on the internment of the japanese, with all due respect, they are disturbing. of course many americans were fearful, and fear always trumps freedom. i'm sure those who were most fearful were those whose government had suddenly imprisoned them through no fault of their own. even as their sons were fighting and dying in the most highly decorated unit (the 442nd infantry regiment)  in american military history.

how anyone can be alright with american citizens rights being stripped from them, because their parents or grandparents came from a certain country, without trial or even charges, is scary. and not just by today's standards, but by the standards of the constitution of the united states.

if the government can do something to one group, it can do it to any group. the germans and the italians weren't rounded up, and i think the public's safety was kept well in tact, despite the fact that there were plenty of german saboteurs in the country. i'm sorry, but in this instance, we allowed fear and even racism to take priority over the very rights our founding documents guarantee. we can't afford to suspend our freedoms simply because it's convenient to do so. that represents tyranny.

OFFLINE

and to top it all off, japanese AMERICANS were class as enemy aliens, despite the fact that they were fully fledged citizens. now that's scary stuff.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

as for your statements on the internment of the japanese, with all due respect, they are disturbing.

Lol!  Yep, I got a red flag and a brown shirt and everything!  (Just kidding).

No I'm not all right with what happened and agree with what you said.  What I meant were that (talking with many people who were around back then), Pearl Harbor freaked people out.  Also keep in mind that the orient and asians were viewed as mysterious and exotic in those days.  Look at how Hollywood portrayed them at the time.  This is the image most Americans had in their mind at the time.  And now, all of a sudden they launch a sneak attack and destroy practically our whole navy?

Imagine the outrage.  Imagine the anger and the calls for annihilation and retaliation.  Look at the old WW2 posters for the war in the Pacific.  The citizens of the US were horrified.  But more than that, they seethed with vengeance.  

And they didnt have political correctness getting in the way.  They didnt worry about what the Nightly News or college professors had to say.  They werent worried about student protests.  And they werent worried about those poor Japanese (many of whom had strong ties to Japan, didnt speak the language and didn't try hard to assimilate into our culture).  Sounds familiar eh?

They were worried about Japanese subs off the coast.  They worried about Japanese balloons dropping bombs on our soil.  (Yep, it happened).  And since Japan had a history already of invading other countries, they worried that Japanese troops would be landing in San Francisco or Portland.  Or maybe invading Alaska.

BTW...you are right that many Japanese served in our armed forces with honor.  But also remember that blacks did too and they had very few rights and were horribly mistreated at the time.

So I'm not saying what FDR did was morally right.  I'm saying it doesnt surprise me and it was a sentiment held by millions of Americans at the time.  And I'm not ashamed of it...or Hiroshima.  That wasnt OUR fault.  It was Japan's.

OFFLINE

See what I mean?

OFFLINE

i see. yeah i'm well aware the racist sentiment toward the japanese following pearl harbor. but the thing is, the u.s. government used that sentiment, and fostered it, as a means of garnering further support for the war. really, to me, this serves as an example of how misplaced rage can be used to justify horrible things.

OFFLINE

and i would add that it wasn't the japanese americans' fault. this is why america's collective rage was misplaced.

OFFLINE

Yeah. But it wasnt just Americans.  This rage was going on all over Europe...all over the world.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Yeah. But it wasnt just Americans.  This rage was going on all over Europe...all over the world.  

it was WORLD war II. everybody was pissed at everybody.

OFFLINE

Back to the topic of Obama circumventing Congress...what about all these Czars several past presidents have created?  Should any president be allowed to create a position that gives so much power to someone without Congressional approval?  I say no...since it isnt a national emergency.  I hate the title 'Czar' anyway.  But appointees should probably undergo the same scrutiny from congress that they gave to people like John Bolton and members of the Court.

Imo, the president should be allowed to name the members of his cabinet...and that all.  Everyone else imo should have Congressional approval.

i'm not even sure we should have a 'Director of Homeland Security'.  Actually those duties should probably be handled by say...the FBI, ATF, ICE, etc.  And each director of those individual agencies should report directly to the President.  The President is our Commander in Chief.  He's is the man who should be responsible and we, the people, have authority and power over him (or her).   And the President should not be able to use the Director of Homeland Security as any sort of scapegoat if he wants.  The President is who we voted for and he is the one who should be responsible for the decisions of protecting our nation.  We put the president into power.  We had no say over the director of homeland security.

OFFLINE

You know...I just looked this up.  We have Czars for everything!  

We have a Czar of Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Why do we need this?  What is our chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for?

We have an AIDS czar!  Why?  What does the Surgeon General do?

We have an Asian Carp czar.  What the heck is that?
We have an auto czar!!!  AND a separate auto recovery Czar!  What is that???
We have a bank bailotu / TAPR Czar.
Bush had a bird flu Czar!  Why?  What does our EPA do?
He had a freakin Birth control Czar!!!  What a waste of money.
We currently have a Border Czar.  I thought the Director of homeland security was supposed to handle that.  Actually the director of US Customs oughta handle this.
A Climate Czar.  A FREAKING Climate CZAR!  I kid you not.  If this werent real I'd think it was a James Gregory Joke.
A Global Warming Czar (separate from the Climate Czar).
A copywrite Czar.  Huh?
A Domestic Violence Czar.  Hmm...seems DHR or the police should handle this.

And get this...we have an economic/ big-picture czar!  Lol!  This is hilarious.  Taxpayers are actually spending money on these freakin things. Hell, I wish I had one of these jobs.

And I've just scratched the surface.  We have agencies already that should be handling each and every one of these issues...and directors of these agencies...but yet we have to pay for these positions.  

Think of this next time they talk about the national debt.  And especially if they talk about cutting Social Security, Medicare or raising your taxes.

OFFLINE

i have a problem with the czars as well. what they represent is an overreach by the executive branch. then again, ever since the civil war, we've been granting the executive far too much power. at our founding, the legislative branch was the most important. in a way, it sort of reminds me of how rome went from a republic to a dictatorship.

OFFLINE

I thought there was a Congressional hearing on the use of Czars a year or so ago.   And this week the House has introduced a bill to shut down their offices.   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/house-republicans-push-shut-white-house-czars/

This bill would cut off funding for the offices, which, imo, is a good thing.  Times are hard enough already and we dont need to be creating more offices to do the work Dept heads already should be doing.

And now that the GOP controls the House...it might pass.