Slashdot Mirror
Why No Executive Order To Stop NSA Metadata Collection?
An anonymous reader links to this editorial at Ars Technica which argues that "As chief executive, Obama has the power to reform the NSA on his own with the stroke of a pen. By not putting this initiative into an executive order, he punted to Congress on an issue that affects the civil liberties of most anybody who picks up a phone. Every day Congress waits on the issue is another day Americans' calling records are being collected by the government without suspicion that any crime was committed. 'He does not need congressional approval for this,' said Mark Jaycoxx, an Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney."
Or they can manufacture it and have demonstrated it to him.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Obama is part of the system that created the problem in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs
He's still got Obama's election slogans ringing in his ears "Yes we can!" and "Change!!" lol. Obama is a political animal, just like all the others in DC. Do not expect anything different from him. As another commenter pointed out, he is part of the system that created and supports the military surveillance complex.
If all Obama does is sign an executive order, the fire under Congress to control this activity is gone, and the next president can easily undo it. How about keeping the heat on Congress to pass legislation?
There is serious political downside to doing this.
Consider for example what would have happened had he walked back all these subversions to our liberties 6 months before the Boston Bombing and then what would have happened in the political sphere thereafter. In the end Obama is not a courageous leader who does what is right because its right - he's a very cautious politician and makes decisions that seem to reflect just that. His administration has made "cover all the bases" types of political decisions from the beginning...unfortunately right after what happened to our civil liberties after the previous administration that is not what we, as a country, probably needed (and he campaigned as if he was something else). Is it possible they have dirt on him, possibly, but I think the political danger angle is the more likely and is also why this will have to be forced on by congress (and Republicans in particular as they would be the one's to pounce him were anything to happen after a rollback). This is also why its going to be very hard for these things to be rolled back.
...and now everyone knows that it's being done, so why stop? Besides, ever try to put a cat back into a bag? I can't imagine trying to take this "toy" away from the NSA (or other agencies) would be any easier.
Once again, this isn't it.
He's had several opportunities to do something about this. He keeps making weaselly attempts to talk about it like he's doing something without actually making any changes. It seems obvious to me that he wants this to continue, much like his equally weasel-ish approach to medical cannabis. And this way, he can blame it on a do-nothing Congress, thus giving his potential successor a talking point.
...was every bit against domestic spying as he was against gay marriage.
Maybe he should have said "If you like your civil liberties, you can keep your civil liberties."
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Executive orders can only live in grey area of no direct law. They are constitutionally questionable in the first place, but they absolutely cannot be used when there is actual law in place. The law takes precedence.
Of course Obama has pushed EOs further then any of his predecessors. He has directly modified obamacare without any legal basis. Gonna suck for the Ds when the shoe is on the other foot.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So you are saying Congress needs to authorize the current activities legislatively, before Obama would feel he had authority to override them by executive order? So as long as the activities are completely illegal he's powerless to stop them, but if they got a legislative fig-leaf then he could stand up to the Republicans by defying them?
You just might have a future at the office of White House Counsel young man!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Perhaps it's simply lip service? He's talked about putting limits on data collection, but to me it sounds more like "Ok, I poured a little water on the fire but you guys have one more chance to not let the cat out of the bag."
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
He wants Republicans to vote no on such a change so it can make them look bad. If he just did it by EO it would make him look bad in eyes of Republicans for abusing Executive power.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Bullshit. These are his programs. He wants them to continue.
Hasn't anybody listened to the man's statements on the subject? He thinks the NSA metadata collection is just peachy keen. It just hasn't been "explained properly" to the public.
Are you telling me a government with the capability of knowing who's talking to whom and what about, just about anywhere in the world, would willingly give up that power just because a few protestors got angry their info is getting caught up in the net? You must be joking.
Between vacations, golf, campaigning and late night TV appearances, where does he have the time?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
This is typical of our current President. If pressed on the issue, he might say that he would "prefer" the NSA not to collect phone records on all Americans, but that so far the opponents of the system just haven't been vocal enough about it for him to take any action on the subject. "Hey, Mr. President, where's all that _change_ you promised us?" I'm sure he would prefer to to do all those things, except that his donors would not be too happy about that.
To think that I voted for this guy... twice. Not that the alternatives were any better, but sometimes I wonder if this administration really is any better than the previous one. And I seriously doubt the next one will be any better. Why? Because today the donors are the ones who are actually running the country (with the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling only adding insult to injury). The only solution I can think of is to attack this evil at its source by getting money out of politics.
why do Republicans in Congress oppose it?
you better check to see who actually supports NSA meta data collection, because it's pretty bipartisan.
stop being a stupid fuck.
if reforming the NSA is so obvious, why do Republicans in Congress oppose it?
Gee.. I wonder if the (R)'s don't have a hard-on to bring on the police-state as much as the democrats? I *used* to be a Republican, after about 1/2 way thru BushJr's second term, I got fed up with the shitting that BOTH parties are doing on the Constitution and dumped the R's.. I held my nose in 2008 and voted for McCain and gleefully voted for Romney in 2012... BUT the vast majority of Republicans nowadays are simply "Democrat-Lite".. They want to shit on the Constitution as much as the D's do... I'm beginning to wonder even about the new R's that came in back in the landslide of 2010, some of them seem to be eying the Constitution as toilet paper also.... Woe unto us...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
It's what they want. But he doesn't sign an executive order about it for the same reason that Congress doesn't bring up contempt charges for people who lie to them. They WANT to be lied to. They want to turn a blind eye to it all.
"i tip my hat to the new constitution
take a bow for the new revolution
smile and grin at the change all around me...
pick up my guitar and play
just like yesterday
when i get on my knees and pray...
we won't get fooled again"
"meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
I am constantly amazed at how naive the average American voter is. Obama was a guy who could give a good speech, but he had ZERO leadership accomplishments to his name. The most basic research into Obama's background should have given anyone pause that he could actually accomplish any of what he promised. He was a Senator, but couldn't point to a single legislative accomplishment. He was in the state senate, but had a record of just voting present on key bills and had no major bills to his name. He was a community organizer, but once again couldn't point to any significant accomplishments. He claims to be a legal scholar, but locked his school records.
For those of you who voted for Obama and are currently disappointed, I have a suggestion for you: next time do some background research on the person instead of just relying on campaign speeches and 30-second ads.
Obama: NO! YOU CAN'T!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The facts do not support your statement There are dates in the Obamacare law that the president has unilaterally changed:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...
Is there any angle a tard like you can take to blame Bush for this? That's your homework assignment.
Of course Obama has pushed EOs further then any of his predecessors. He has directly modified obamacare without any legal basis. Gonna suck for the Ds when the shoe is on the other foot.
Yes I am sure they'll put on a nice show and make a phony speech or two against it. Truth is, the corporate sponsors, bankers, and financiers who own both parties will be pleased and they're the ones who matter.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Since the author was apparently born yesterday, I would like to explain a simple concept. When politicians want naive citizens to believe they're doing something when, in fact, they are not doing it and do not want to do it, they will make a big show about doing it in a very roundabout and ineffective way. This has been going on for, oh, all of recorded history.
Did you read my second paragraph? It's the first time any president attempted that and has yet to play out.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It was a program he approved and sponsored no matter what ignorance he claims. We need to hold him accountable, but unfortunately, there is an unhealthy celebrity love affair with this president that he is using to cover the usual dirt that comes with this office.
No. They will issue EOs unilaterally changing Obamacare, just like Obama has. e.g. 5 year maximum subsidies, then everybody pays full price. No employer mandate (push the date back forever). etc etc.
Obama has pushed EOs past the breaking point. He's Caesar, just nobody has noticed yet. I almost hope Hillary wins, Obama is not going to leave office if he loses to a Republican (and his followers will eat it up; 'election was rigged, election was rigged!').
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Good attempt at satire. You've got the complete lack of logic down (executive orders that can't be changed, funny.) but not the language. The real idiots would have refered to Bush as Shurb or some such and been _much_ less coherent.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Obama does not support a policy of warrantless wiretaps
Then why did he vote in favor of it when he was in congress? Why didn't he veto it when he had the chance as president? Don't deceive yourself with partisan blindness.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Because terrorists. Go back to Russia, pinko!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Bush started the NSA warrantless wiretapping program...and the metadata program...Ron Wyden exposed it by talking about it openly in Senate speeches....Obama ended many of the programs Bush started
Bush started the NSA warrantless wiretapping/spying program
that's why I "blame" him for it
here's the evidence: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news... from **2006**
"NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls"
Thank you Dave Raggett
This is bullshit. I'm in the center, and all I see are lefties saying "Obama knows best; he's doing what's necessary" and people on the right saying "war on terrorists.. rabble rabble if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear."
I am center-left, and it's all horse shit. The fourth amendment has been gutted and I'm livid... as I am with Obama and Holder's misuse of drone strikes against US citizens.
... this is why obama is not on your side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence
you can't blame Dem's for Bush's policies
NSA warrantless wiretapping started under Bush, everyone knows this: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news...
Thank you Dave Raggett
With everyone hating on the R's the D' President is allowing NSA spying and even went after whistle blowers....
All I hear on the news is people bitching about the issues and republicans, where is the outrage for D's?
The US has spousal abuse syndrome for politicians. He only hits me because he loves me. I stand by my elected official..
Genuinely interested, how do Dems shit all over the constitution?
The executive branch has the authority to delay implementation of laws in order to make those laws work better. This has been done THOUSANDS of times in the past, and has been upheld by the courts whenever challenged. It is absolutely a routine part of how the American government works.
Republicans are strategically howling about this, just like they did when he appointed "czars" to manage certain departments (a practice started by Nixon). It's just a tactic. A trick, to make the uneducated masses think Obama is doing something bad. You fell for it, because you're gullible.
The post of 'President' is a now bureaucratic continuance of policy. One president just continues what was done before.
We need free thinkers and independent action takers in that branch.
There aren't in any other branches of the (American) government that can change the ship of state like the Presidency. Nor should they. The other branches are designed to slow things down.
I can envision Barack Obama trying to change things but literally every bureaucratic pomp-ass around him saying 'you can't do that'!! and I am sure they tell him: 'You Cant SAY that'. it is outrageous!
If I were the first black President I would probably stick with the status quo, just to keep the post open to the next qualified person who isn't a white male.
Where is the Teddy Roosevelt of our age?????
Or do you see an Employer Mandate that I don't?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
They became his programs the moment he assumed office. He is the embodiment of the executive branch, and all of its power is vested in him. Congratulations, you seem to have weaned yourself off of asterisks.
please tell me you're being dense on purpose?
Every time a democrat tries to ban guns, they're shitting on the second amendment. Edward Snowden is currently hiding in Russia because of the whitehouse shitting on the constitution. Measures of freedom of the press say that the press is self censoring more than they ever had before for fear of prosecution from the current administration. What's sad is, all of those aren't technically "the constitution" but amendments to said constitution. Now, Obamas declaration during the state of the union address where he said he was going to push through whatever he wanted via executive order and damn all to what congress says, now that is actually a clear cut, defined, straight up violation of the divisions of power as laid out in the constitution. There's also the selective enforcement of laws as passed by congress (immigration, corporate adherence to ACA) are also violations of his constitutionally mandated job.
Just because they may be violating it in ways you agree with, doesn't mean they aren't violations.
Hello, Obama has been the man in charge of the NSA for over five years. He's the head of the executive branch.
None of the politicians can really stop this surveillance state. If some politician had the courage to stop it and then some terrorist incident, however minor, were to happen, the opposing party would absolutely crucify him. They all know this. This is why both parties are behaving in the same way. Something really scary happened on 9/11. The politicians promised security in exchange for freedom and people happily agreed. Nothing new there at all. The difference was that this time around, computer technology allowed the creation of a perfect police state. All police states in the past have had a fundamental problem; a society can support only so many secret policemen. Not enough secret policemen to create the perfect police state. With computer technology, that limit is erased. I am afraid this is going to become quite dystopian.
Please give an example from before Obama where a President delayed implementation of a law which specified a specific date for its implementation to begin. I do not find any place in the U.S. Constitution where the President is given the authority to alter a law passed by Congress and signed by a sitting President, not even so much as delaying the date of implementation as written into the law.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Using the IRS to target political speech they disagree with.
Using the ATF to ship guns to Mexican criminals so they can say there is a US gun problem and we need to ban them.
Targeting US citizens with drone strikes in foreign countries without a trial.
Ignoring the 14th amendment by giving Congress subsidies on Obamacare, but other people making $174K a year don't get them.
Spying on all US citizens without a warrant.
Should I go on?
What motivation does Obama have to stop this? His liberal base doesn't seem to care.
They do - when Democrats are not in office.
Which is why you should not vote Democrats into office, because everyone assumes they are doing as they should instead of checking.
Any other party will do, the Democrats have just become too entrenched and too powerful (as they control Hollywood and the media, or at least most of those organizations will look the other way for many offenses in the case of Democrats).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
After all, it helped him steal the 2012 election and the dirt he gets on his political enemies makes it invaluable. If you want to run a dictatorship (and Obama's been governing LIKE one) you need "secret police" spying on your enemies.
Which is why he isn't going to stop it. His announcement was pure window dressing. Like everything else his bumbling Regime does, he wants to APPEAR to be against NSA spying for consumption by the Low Information Masses so that he doesn't get blamed for it, all the while his operatives dig deeper into our privacy.
Corporatism != Free Market
It's ok to be unhappy with Bush and Obama. That's allowed.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
not safe.
lol.. and the chief executive officer in the US has absolutely no power to change or stop the programs that the former administration set in place basically by using the executive powers of the office? These programs were in the lime light when Obama was running for office the first time and he campaigned against them.
The minute Obama failed to act on the programs, they became his. The minute he took office and did nothing, he took responsibility for them. This is his second term and even if you claim he couldn't do anything about it, he wasted his first term not trying and even signed the patriot act extension from France using an auto-pen technology to stop it from sun-setting.
I'm really getting sick and tire of everyone blaming Obama's failures on Bush. Stop scape goating him and hold his feet to the fire if you expect any change. Holding on to your political ideology just isn't worth it. Especial when you can claim he was just a liar and not what he lead you to believe and escape with your political ideology in tact.
Given how wrong you are, your sig is quite apropos.
Several of these programs date to after 2008. The rest Obama would have definitely been briefed on. Congress may not have known, but if you think he didn't you are pulling the wool over your own eyes. Just because you were in the dark doesn't mean he was. Notice how he has never claimed to not have known about what the NSA was doing? He knew because he authorized it. All of it.
These are his programs. Believing anything else is willful self-deception. It might help your cognitive dissonance, but it is ruining the country.
And with the senate controlled by democrats, none of those bills have ever been passed and became law.
Oh wait, reality just called and wanted to know if you would be home in time for dinner.
Hey now, you've hit the nail on the head. Fact is that it is corporations that wanted and bought and paid for it over time. No politician can go against it without risking retribution to their family or themselves. It's the phucking mob in corporate disguise. And because they didn't go Nuke off the bat looks like 9/11 was an inside job to begin with. They control every aspect of our lives now. That is not life.
Ummmm... Bush was elected twice as well. Presumably by some of the same people who voted for Obama twice.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just because you say they "became his" doesn't mean you have proven any kind of point.
We have discussed why he's trying to go through Congress.
If NSA warrantless wiretapping is so universally despised **why arent' Republicans putting forth their own bills?**
Thank you Dave Raggett
the Bush admin admitted it from the beginning
Thank you Dave Raggett
of course it's allowed...
in the context of this conversation we all have to be consistent...i'm not saying you, phantomfive, are not consistent but just firing off criticisms with no linkage to the actual policies and laws & who originates them and votes for them
we don't have to just say "they all suck"...it's more complex than that and we're not idiots
of course conversations don't **have** to be consistent either...but productive discussion must have consistency...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Check out how many of them (and Republicans did the same) voted for the Patriot Act the first time around. Even recently, there were a large number of them that voted to renew the Patriot Act. We have stop-and-frisk, the TSA, the NSA surveillance, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, public surveillance, among other things. These are bipartisan efforts to infringe upon our fundamental liberties, and anyone who says otherwise is a partisan fool.
[End Of Line]
in the context of this conversation we all have to be consistent...i'm not saying you, phantomfive, are not consistent but just firing off criticisms with no linkage to the actual policies and laws & who originates them and votes for them
Fair enough. As far as I'm concerned, Obama owned the program ever since he voted for immunity. He owned it even more when he had a chance to veto the patriot act.
Furthermore, when he's talked about changing the program, he doesn't talk about getting rid of it. He defends it. Make minor changes or something.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Sites like Salon and The Guardian broke the Snowden story, and they keep running with it. There is a very long list of left-leaning sites that keep the issue highly visible, including HuffPo, DKos, Raw Story, TruthOut, DemocracyNow! and I dare even list Ars Technica in that group. Yes, there are Obama-worshippers who try to paint anti-NSA info and sentiment as fifth-column betrayal, but overall if you sample the comments in places like DKos and DU, you'll see some skirmishes over the issue of party loyalty (and accusations of racism) with the anti-NSA crowd handily coming out on top.
As for the lack of protest, lets just say the story was still developing in the fall and its been one heck of a winter.
I almost hope Hillary wins, Obama is not going to leave office if he loses to a Republican (and his followers will eat it up; 'election was rigged, election was rigged!').
So sorry, the Constitution requires he step down at the end of his second term. None of this 'El Presidente For Life' bullshit you see in bad movies.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
So you are saying Congress needs to authorize the current activities legislatively, before Obama would feel he had authority to override them by executive order? So as long as the activities are completely illegal he's powerless to stop them, but if they got a legislative fig-leaf then he could stand up to the Republicans by defying them? You just might have a future at the office of White House Counsel young man!
No, we're saying that in order for the changes to stick, it will take Congressional action, i.e., a law. Executive orders can be rescinded by the next guy in the chair. See LBJ's rescinding of JFK's executive orders dismantling the CIA.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Bush wrote his orders in such a way that no other President can undo them. It requires congress, so this is 100% Bush's fault, and Obama is not allowed to undo it. I hate the people irrationally attacking him for something he simply cannot undo. Please attack the family responsible for it instead. The Bush junta created this and has left it in a state that Democrats cannot legally undo.
Yeah, he can undo it. He just can't make it stick. Next asshole in the chair can undo his undoing with the stroke of a pen. That's why they need a law in place to fix this. There's just no way he'll get that unless some serious changes happen in the midterms. Congress needs to purge the Tealiban and get people in there willing to compromise and govern.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
If he issues an executive order to undo the spying, it is likely that those in congress who want the spying to stay will refuse to support Obama on other things he wants.
You're assuming he already has support in Congress. Keep in mind they haven't sent him a budget in five years. Considering that's supposed to be the top priority per the Constitution, seems to me that somebody's dropping the ball. And it don't look like El Presidente.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Thing is, the people really behind the idea to wiretap any- and everybody, i.e. maintaining a big brother society, the people who have interest in this and the mindset to push for these ideas and carry them out - they see the state of the matter today as a hard won victory, decades in the making - and just as anybody who is afraid to loose their newly won property, they are afraid to loose it as well, and will not back down.
In short, getting to where we are with wiretapping today cost a lot of sweat and blood to these people, and the last thing they will allow is a step or steps in backward direction. The system as it is did not just appear out of nothing - a lot of folks have been putting a lot of hours into building it brick by brick, and they want their product to live on and return their investments. There are examples of far more benign ideas being pushed only because the incepting party wants ROI, end of story. This one however, is much more than just a lousy idea - it's a chance for a theocrat to see one of their dreams come to actual fruition.
>Using the IRS to target political speech they disagree with.
I agree with all your other examples but on this one - the blame belongs with the reps -it was *they* who started and still continue to push for "profiling".
Now the reps profile on race, religion and stuff like that - the dems were actually a notch less evil with their profiling. While the reps were profiling based on things which are either completely uncontrollable (like race) or specifically protected by the constitution (like religion) the dems merely profiled as "like to have cheated on taxes" people and organisations who have PUBLICLY declared their dislike for taxes and their support for ideologies that seeks the abolition of taxation (and frequently encourages tax-cheating to help bring that about).
That's akin to if the reps were arguing that when a rapper sings about his love for weed that's probably cause to get a search warrant (as opposed to "if you're black we get to search your car for weed and if you wear a hajib we get to assume you're a muslim and search you car for bombs because reasons".
It's still evil - but it's a lot LESS evil than what the reps continue to do and support in the same vein.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Only preferences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I've read this whole thread. And as an Aussie sitting idly by watching my own government take after the US in all the ways that matter, confronted by the bickering and infighting on display here I'm concerned. It's getting more desperate everywhere, in the past there were many philosophical & political hard points that users could rally around on this site. One example being the Open Source movement having made for itself a soft-spot in the hearts and minds of many a nerd/geek. Slashdot has never been a sanctuary for M$/Apple zealots and so we could agree on much. But politically? Eh, seems to me we're more fractured than I've ever seen before because things have gotten so bad in post 9/11 America.
When under some future Republican President some Government efforts to spy on the American people in uncovered, we'll expect you to be here saying "We will continue to maintain a big, powerful government, because we prefer a stronger government, instead of a weaker one."
You know, when a bio-chip implant is required in all people, simplifying Government's ability to track the whereabouts of everyone, all the time, let's say...in an effort to prevent crime, facilitate healthcare (tied to your medical records), provide irrefutable positive voter ID.
I'm sure the big, powerful, stronger rather than weaker Government will be glad to count on your support.
Gitmo. Nor did he order the immediate withdrawal of US troops deployed around the world (notably those deployed fighting "Bush's Wars"). Nor has he moved to undo the PATRIOT Act.
None of the "evil" things Bush/Cheney were doing, that the left complained about so vocally, that Obama *ran* on...he's done zipnuts anything about.
To do these things would dismantle some of the Power, and I don't see Mr Obma as one who would let go of any aspect of power, especially Government Power that he controls.
Then, let them. They passed the laws that allowed this to begin in the first place, right? It snowdened...err...snowballed from there.
Yes, the President can stop it with a stroke of a pen. Similarly, the next one can undo it with it a stroke of the pen also.
And, everybody will get up in arms about his not having done it sooner when it had CONGRESSIONAL approval. Right now, following the disclosures, allowing the agencies to find new collection techniques (not, necessarily against domestic targets) is essential. For him to stop it, could spell a national security disaster. Who really wants that on their hands?
Best solution is to tell Congress to get off their high-horses (ALL members), and write a law outlawing the activity. Get the Senate to agree and pass it accordingly. Note all those who object, what their objection is and who they are. Changing something of this magnitude requires bi-partisan support. Once they have bipartisan consensus, , send it to the White House for signature. If the President refuses to sign the bill into law, that will truly say something.
Just my take.
When did Obama start caring about the constitution? Remember where this conversation started?
The cult of personality is building and a danger.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Sadly, your comment falls on deaf ears even if you are right (which, you made some very valid points).
You have found your post modded down to 0 so it won't be heard because it doesn't agree with the collectively hive thinking. I will, likely, be modded down to troll for agreeing with you.
Welcome to the new /.
Any previous president? Liar, liar pants on fire!
Has any previous president issued EOs that directly change law that was constitutionally passed as opposed to making policy in unregulated areas?
FDR was king of the EO.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What data and metadata do they have on the President, and his advisors, and the Cabinet? I mean, if they were listening to Prime Minister Merkel of Germany, and on, and on, why wouldn't they listen locally, if only to ensure their own funding?
mark
He already got one, what does he need another for?
A. It's Congress' job B. EO's can be changed with the next administration.
All of Congress and the President act out of fear more than anything else. Which do you think would hurt the Democrat's image more in the mind of the average citizen: to have the NSA snooping in his underwear, or to have a passenger jet take out another population nexus? All of you shouting about invasions of privacy are fighting a loosing battle. The average citizen (having barely a high school education and knowing very well the history of his favorite TV star and almost nothing about the constitution) will not care until he can see how the actions of the government actually affect him.
Why would Obama bring attention to this by issuing an executive order? That only exposes him to more derogatory comments from the Democrat's critics. Obama may be ignorant, but he ain't stupid!
Thanks but I didn't arrive at my conclusion by reading the law. It just what I've observed. I would think that executive orders that go against the law would be invalid. A White House Counsel has to look beyond what the law says and find ways to invalidate the law. Suppose for example, that the president were to push for a law granting legal status to certain illegal aliens and was unable to convince the legislative branch to make such a law. I would think that's the end of it, but apparently the failure to pass the law actually gives the president the power to enforce the law that didn't pass. I would never have thought of that without seeing it.
Another one that initially confused me was when the president wanted to delay Obamacare. The Republicans in congress offered to pass a law to allow him to do just that - and we can presume the Democrats would have agreed. But Obama actually opposed the change in law, and then did by executive order what the bill, had it passed, would have allowed him to do.
I can only conclude then that my old understanding of executive orders was flawed. Obama's decision only makes sense if the passage of the law allowing him to delay Obamacare would have tied his hands and prevented him from delaying Obamacare by executive order.
A good White House Counsel has to figure these things out ahead of time. I could never do it.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
No. They will issue EOs unilaterally changing Obamacare, just like Obama has
Unlikely. Establishment conservatives (the kind who ran Congress under Bush and expanded government and grew the debt just like Democrats) simply don't do what they say they will. If one gets elected he'll just let Obamacare go on its way enriching health insurance companies like it was designed by the Democrats to do.
If someone like Cruz gets elected he'll be faced with a conundrum. As a limited government fiscal conservative he'll no likely want to get rid of Obamacare. However the same tendencies that lead someone to want limited government also lead that person to believe the laws that limit the President to his Constitutional role should be followed - and unilaterally overturning laws is not within the President's power.
Perhaps though he has an out. If you remember the Democrats "deemed" the law to have passed and there was some controversy about it. Perhaps a President could say that on review of the record, the bill never passed Congress and is therefore not a law and never was a law and that enforcement must cease immediately.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Obama is not going to leave office if he loses to a Republican.
He'll leave office. There are too many ambitious Democrats who want to be president someday for him to be able to get away with staying around. And there are too many ambitious Democrats who want to take the current job of whoever becomes the next Democratic president. If you're a politician with ambition, one thing you don't want is for the people at the top to stay there forever. You want them moving up or retiring to make room for you.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.