[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The era of the American dictatorship is at hand.

If it is then Obama set the stage.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/14/ive-g ... one-obamas

$1:

In December 2007 presidential candidate Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that if he won the 2008 election, he would enter the White House committed to rolling back the sort of overreaching executive power that had characterized the presidency of George W. Bush. "The President is not above the law," Obama insisted.

Once elected, however, President Obama began to sing a different sort of tune. "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation," Obama announced. "I've got a pen and I've got a phone...and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions."

Obama's pen and phone did not sit idle. For example, despite the fact that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority "to declare war," Obama unilaterally declared war on Libya in 2011. Similarly, despite the fact that the Constitution requires the Senate to confirm all presidential appointments to high office, except in those limited circumstances in which the Senate is not available to act because it is in recess, Obama unilaterally placed multiple officials in high office without senatorial approval during a period in which the Senate was still in session.

To make matters worse, many of Obama's fervent liberal supporters pretended to see nothing wrong with such obvious abuses of executive power. For example, consider the behavior of the prestigious editorial board of The New York Times. Back in 2006, when George W. Bush had the reins, the Times published an unsigned editorial lambasting Bush for his "grandiose vision of executive power" and his foul scheme to sidestep the Senate and unilaterally install his nominees in high office. "Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break," the Times complained, "Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments—a constitutional gimmick."

But guess what the Times had to say a few years later when President Obama had the reins and he utilized the exact same gimmick? "Mr. Obama was entirely justified in using his executive power to keep federal agencies operating," the Times declared in defense of Obama's three illegal appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. (Those three NLRB appointments, incidentally, were ruled unconstitutional by a 9-0 Supreme Court.)

Perhaps you can see where I'm going with this. Once President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office in January 2017, he too will have a pen and a phone at his presidential fingertips. Should Trump grow weary of the constitutional limits placed upon him, and decide instead to ignore the Constitution and wield unilateral executive power, he won't exactly have far to look if he wants to find a recent presidential role model to emulate.

[BeaverFever]

He didn't declare war on Libya

[BRAH]

This mess is a result of the Intelligence Agencies pushing back because Trump will not be playing their games of interventionism anymore. They want Assad gone from Syria etc and that's why Clinton was their candidate.

[BeaverFever]

Assad is Putin's boy, Like Trump is

[BRAH]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Assad is Putin's boy, Like Trump is

[BeaverFever]

The horse is alive and well

[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The era of the American dictatorship is at hand.

If it is then Obama set the stage.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/14/ive-g ... one-obamas

$1:

In December 2007 presidential candidate Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that if he won the 2008 election, he would enter the White House committed to rolling back the sort of overreaching executive power that had characterized the presidency of George W. Bush. "The President is not above the law," Obama insisted.

Once elected, however, President Obama began to sing a different sort of tune. "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation," Obama announced. "I've got a pen and I've got a phone...and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions."

Obama's pen and phone did not sit idle. For example, despite the fact that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority "to declare war," Obama unilaterally declared war on Libya in 2011. Similarly, despite the fact that the Constitution requires the Senate to confirm all presidential appointments to high office, except in those limited circumstances in which the Senate is not available to act because it is in recess, Obama unilaterally placed multiple officials in high office without senatorial approval during a period in which the Senate was still in session.

To make matters worse, many of Obama's fervent liberal supporters pretended to see nothing wrong with such obvious abuses of executive power. For example, consider the behavior of the prestigious editorial board of The New York Times. Back in 2006, when George W. Bush had the reins, the Times published an unsigned editorial lambasting Bush for his "grandiose vision of executive power" and his foul scheme to sidestep the Senate and unilaterally install his nominees in high office. "Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break," the Times complained, "Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments—a constitutional gimmick."

But guess what the Times had to say a few years later when President Obama had the reins and he utilized the exact same gimmick? "Mr. Obama was entirely justified in using his executive power to keep federal agencies operating," the Times declared in defense of Obama's three illegal appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. (Those three NLRB appointments, incidentally, were ruled unconstitutional by a 9-0 Supreme Court.)

Perhaps you can see where I'm going with this. Once President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office in January 2017, he too will have a pen and a phone at his presidential fingertips. Should Trump grow weary of the constitutional limits placed upon him, and decide instead to ignore the Constitution and wield unilateral executive power, he won't exactly have far to look if he wants to find a recent presidential role model to emulate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

Reagan - 381 EO's
Bush Jr - 291
Obama - 261 as of Nov 10/16

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

Reagan - 381 EO's
Bush Jr - 291
Obama - 261 as of Nov 10/16

That doesn't tell the whole story though. You have to consider he started late:

$1:

In 2015, after Republicans won control of the Senate, Mr. Obama gave up on working with Congress and vowed to double down on use of his unilateral powers, which he dubbed his “pen.”

Also...

$1:

Clyde Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this president may not even use the traditional methods of executive orders or regulations. During his time in office, Mr. Obama has expanded the use of other avenues of executive power, including memos and guidance from underlings.

“There are a lot more rules that get issued now by the federal government that don’t go through the standard notice and comment procedure,” Mr. Crews said. “They don’t need to write rules anymore. They’ve got things pretty much under control.”

Then there were other sneaky, not quite executive order methods of getting things done - like this:

$1:

The White House announced on Tuesday that Obama would use a little-known provision in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 to ban offshore drilling on large swaths of the ocean floor from Maine to Virginia and along much of Alaska’s coast. The action is not an executive order but rather Obama invoking an obscure provision of existing federal law that is rarely used, which says the president “may, from time to time, withdraw” federal waters that are not already leased from oil and gas development.

Then there are the expected lame duck executive orders:

$1:

Look out for the executive orders, the “midnight” regulations and, perhaps most controversially, the pardons.
As President Obama runs out the clock on his eight-year tenure, analysts say, he still has plenty of business left undone, and they expect him to follow the lead of other presidents and issue a series of rules, to add to his list of executive orders, to continue his record-setting pace of commutations and perhaps add a controversial pardon or two into the mix.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-bans ... ve-orders/

Lame duck executive orders would be things like all the land grabbing he was doing last week, or ending 'Wet Foot Dry Foot' policy with Cuba today.

Then there's the fact that even if you just consider the actual executive orders; legal types have been calling a lot of Obama's EO's illegal. In fact:

$1:

One of Mr. Obama’s biggest moves, his 2014 attempt to grant a deportation amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, came not from an executive order or regulation but in a policy memo he directed be issued by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. A federal district court put the amnesty on hold, ruling that Mr. Johnson should have gone through the regulatory process instead.
Later, a federal appeals court issued an even broader ruling finding that the amnesty violated immigration law. The Supreme Court upheld that decision on a tie 4-4 vote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-expecte/

[N_Fiddledog]

In any case I think the point of the Reason article was more to point out the hypocrisy of lambasting Bush for EOs then supporting the continued practise under Obama. And he leaves us with an expectation of double hypocrisy if Trump continues the practise with 'his pen.'

[Thanos]

No, it's just nitpicking in your own favour as usual with a double-dose of trying to make a perfectly legal constitutional power of the president look illegitimate when it was used by Obama. Kind of the same bit of silliness the Soviets used to do in the Cold War when talking about their 40000 nuclear warheads. "The American weapons are hostile and war-like, Russia's ones are happy and peace-loving". You guys are getting more like Russians every day now with this kind of anti-fact goober routine. "Orders from Obama are illegal and full of hate and worse than Hitler, but ones from Reagan/Dubya/Trump are good, decent, and as American as apple pie and baseball". Sigh.

[ShepherdsDog]

Thanos Thanos:

No, it's just nitpicking in your own favour as usual with a double-dose of trying to make a perfectly legal constitutional power of the president look illegitimate when it was used by Obama. Kind of the same bit of silliness the Soviets used to do in the Cold War when talking about their 40000 nuclear warheads. "The American weapons are hostile and war-like, Russia's ones are happy and peace-loving". You guys are getting more like Russians every day now with this kind of anti-fact goober routine. "Orders from Obama are illegal and full of hate and worse than Hitler, but ones from Reagan/Dubya/Trump(Putin) are good, decent, and as American as apple pie and baseball". Sigh.

Fixed for accuracy.

[Thanos]

Wonder what Saint Ronnie would have thought about his beloved GOP being nearly 100% in the tank for a Russian dictator (and full of sheer hate for their "wrong thinking" fellow countrymen) less than thirty years after the US won the Cold War.

[BeaverFever]

Republicans stood in front of TV cameras and publicly vowed that they would not work with Obama on any issue. Their complaint that he wasn't working with them is the exact opposite of reality.

Typical Republican tactic: As I suggested in earlier post, if you want to make your living by stealing things, a good way to avoid suspicion is to constantly accuse some else of being a thief

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Republicans stood in front of TV cameras and publicly vowed that they would not work with Obama on any issue.

Reminds me of polls I saw recently. It asked if you'd let your child marry someone of the opposite political leaning. It was 80% or something say they would not.

That's how far down the rabbit hole US politics has gone! They love their country, they love the rights of free speech and the right to self determination - but God help you if you lean politically different than me! Then you are a scourge that must be wiped out!

Politics being held higher than the welfare of the country, even though most people consider politicians corrupt. It wobbles the mind!

[BRAH]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Republicans stood in front of TV cameras and publicly vowed that they would not work with Obama on any issue. Their complaint that he wasn't working with them is the exact opposite of reality.

Trump Meets With Al Gore on Climate Change While House G.O.P. Rebuffs Tariff Plan

$1:

Al Gore thought he would be bending the ear of the adviser Mr. Trump trusts most, his daughter Ivanka.

Instead, the man bearing “The Inconvenient Truth” went straight to the source: the president-elect himself.

“I had a lengthy and very productive session with the president-elect,” Mr. Gore, the former vice president, told reporters at Trump Tower. “It was a sincere search for areas of common ground. I had a meeting beforehand with Ivanka Trump. The bulk of the time was with the president-elect, Donald Trump. I found it an extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0
___________________________

Republicans did and it was shameful but hopefully with Trump it might be different as he's reaching out to Democrats who have actual influence like Al Gore keeping an open mind on issues like Climate Change etc.

$1:

My fave part about the #Buzzfeed story is that it alleges Obama stayed in a Russian intel controlled hotel w bugged rooms.

In a rush to go after Trump has anyone on the Left considered this?