The president's precident

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

AKA "The Fix"

So in the lead up to the shutdown President Obama was telling his critics that the ACA was “settled” and “here to stay”. But in a effort to stave off growing backlash, and the threat of house Democrats siding with Republicans on the Keep Your Health Plan Act, the President is announcing that he will delay enforcement of the act's policy requirements and employer mandate until after the 2014 election cycle. (May 2015)

So in a seriously surreal moment Tea-partiers and the GOP establishment find themselves nodding in a agreement with Howard Dean...

So does the president have the authority to "fix" a problematic law? The short answer is no, he doesn't. If the President doesn't even get a line-item veto. He certainly doesn't get to rewrite or amend a statute without sending it back to congress.

Now I understand the desire to do "whatever it takes" to salvage the President's signature achievement but it sets a dangerous precedent. Would Obama, and his party as whole, be similarly supportive of a hypothetical pro-life president's attempts to unilaterally "fix" abortion law, or a libertarian president "fixing" the federal tax code? Personally I suspect that the vast majority of Democrats would be up in arms, and that calls for impeachment would on the speaker's desk before lunch.

And yet here we are...

Personally I find these developments deeply troubling.

I've been told that I put too much stock in "dead white slave-holders", but I still believe that the chief thing that stands between the US and a neo-soviet or fascist style police state is not the fact that we get to elect a new set of Ivy-League overlords every 4-8 years but the fact that there are, in theory at least, rules and standards that even our Ivy-League overlords must adhere to. "a government," as John Adams used to say "of laws not of men".

Only time will tell what sort of effect Obama's presidency will have on "rule of law" but unless there is some serious push-back and soon I don't see it being a good one.

I would hope that those who criticized Bush for his "Imperial Presidency" would see this as well.

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

They wont nor should we ever expect them to (http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-destruction-principle.html).

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Seriously, can you stop with this generalized crap about "leftists"?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Can you stop adhering to the stereotype?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's a baseless accusation to throw at me or the community and the article you posted is the sort of projection-laden shite that would be laughable except that you seem to be taking it seriously.

Understand the single most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is that they are lazy.

Tell me more.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Understand the single most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is that they are lazy.

That's why they sit back and think about a problem before acting on it to minimise the necessary labour. Or, even more so, they make a technology that does the work.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Except that technical side of the house is generally more libertarian / right wing in the US.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

See this? It's my "this discussion is comic" face.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Citation needed.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Except that once again you are living up to it.

It's a lot easier to point at the other guy and play blame games than it is to take responsibility.

It's a lot easier to knock people down a peg than it is to build them up.

This is the role you've chosen to play.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

And then you complain about conservatives being lumped into groups and being conveniently labeled into strawman stereotypes for the purpose of being bashed more easily. And in the meantime you're totally not seeing the hypocrisy here. Right?

You're making a caricature of yourself at this point, basically. And you don't even bother to acknowledge it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You're right.

And this is why I should not post while both tired and angry.

I'm going to get some sleep.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

It's amazing how hard most people find it to just stand up from the chair/sofa/whatever and have some fresh air on the balcony or something.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Apologize.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm going to have to apologize and take a breather.

I'm pissed off about this and other things and I'm taking it out on you which is rather hypocritical of me all things considered.

[paft.livejournal.com]

s "Understand the single most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is that they are lazy. They do not want to work. They do not want to strive. They want an easy and paid-for life as much as possible."

Uh, excuse me... You're calling not only me, but my husband, my parents, my siblings (none of whom you have ever met) "Lazy?"

Liberals who have spent their lives working with the poor, with the sick, with the disabled are "lazy?" Liberals who have traveled to other countries and lived among the poor there are "lazy?" The liberals who traveled to the American south and put their lives on the line in the name of black civil rights (sometimes paying the ultimate price) were "lazy?"

My parents are lazy? My Dad who helped run a soup kitchen? My mother who worked with emotionally disturbed kids and adults who were severely cognitively disabled is "lazy?" My brother the schoolteacher? My father-in-law the WWII vet who worked long hard days after the war to send his kids to college?

Do explain what you know about them that warrants this insult.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

These are not the things that define a liberal. If they were, the Catholic Church would be one of the most "liberal" organizations in the world.

and yes I think that you are lazy. Rigor would require you to hold your allies to the same standard that you hold your enemies and you have made it clear that you place your party affiliation above moral concerns.

What they will tell you is that they are doing it for some noble cause or another. To protect the environment. To protect the children. To save the whales. But this is nothing but an outright lie. However, what's really interesting about this lie is that they are telling it not so much to convince you about their nobility, but rather to convince themselves.

At the very least it provides a logically constant explanation for the often contradictory and self-destructive behavior displayed by social justice warriors such as your self.

[paft.livejournal.com]

s: These are not the things that define a liberal.

Not all of them, perhaps, but conservatives were pretty damned thin on the ground among the people who traveled to the south to register blacks or take part in Freedom Rides during the black civil rights movement.

No, working and living among the poor does not necessarily define one as "liberal." It sure as hell doesn't define one as "lazy" either.

This seems to be yet another one of your attempts to redefine commonly used words to suit your own political agenda. The fact that someone disagrees with you politically does not make them any less "rigorous" and does not warrant painting them all with the contemptuous label of "lazy." And frankly, given your fondness for jargon and redefining words, and your assiduous avoidance of connecting your arguments with actual reality, I don't think you're in any position to complain about another persons lack of "rigor" when it comes to formulating opinions.