The president's precident
17/11/13 12:58![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAKA "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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 01:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 03:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 04:44 (UTC)Understand the single most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is that they are lazy.
Tell me more.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 05:16 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 08:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 08:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 21:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 08:23 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 08:29 (UTC)You're making a caricature of yourself at this point, basically. And you don't even bother to acknowledge it.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 08:33 (UTC)And this is why I should not post while both tired and angry.
I'm going to get some sleep.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 08:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 14:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 08:43 (UTC)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.