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 06:54 (UTC)I didn't really get your initial question as I was talking about Obama instead of congress, but fine. I will certainly agree that the congress in general and the GOP congress in particular has been less than helpful in closing Guantanamo as well as several of Mr. Obama's other campaign promises. They have completely shut down any attempt to move them anywhere else in the US, which would have been the easiest option.
So, by this spirited defense of his record, it seems you're pretty satisfied with Mr. Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo then?
I don't know
I had asked a pretty straight forward question about Obama doing a U-turn regarding Guantanamo once he was elected. Is "I don't know" is your final answer?
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 07:17 (UTC)Yeah he could have. Maybe he should have. It's irrelevant because of the votes to block any such bill.
But it wasn't like there was an economic collapse going on from the minute he was sworn in January of 2009, etc. Nor was there a filibuster proof majority until later in the year (October), which didn't matter because of the earlier vote in May of 2009 for preventing the parishioners from being moved.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 07:29 (UTC)I don't think this is a hard question and I did enjoy your floor show dancing around a pretty direct question for a while but it is getting a bit old. Either an answer or some macros to liven things up would be appreciated.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 07:42 (UTC)Toodles :P
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/13 07:51 (UTC)