Presidential Power vs. Presidential Authority

[Martinsamerica]

Overlooking the massive intrusion of the federal government in our daily lives, and the supreme courts complacency of such, using the commerce claus as a basis - I want to pose a question of enumerated presidential authority.

The constitution outlines the separation of powers for the federal government, and the strongest of the three branches of government was intended to be congress. It's almost as simple as first grade civis - congress was to enact laws, and the executive was to enforce them. The supreme court enters to determine the constitutionality of such laws.

Prior to the presidency of Andrew Jackson, American presidents acted as stewards of congressionally enacted laws, they were in essense administrators. Andrew Jackson, who I believe is one of our greatest presidents, took the presidency to the next left. He set the agendas, he used his executive control over the military and law enforcement to circumvent supreme court rulings, and basically flexed the authorotative muscles the constitution did not grant him. Since then presidents have followed suit.

The current president in particular, we have seen him time and again making demands of congress - but as the constitution outlines, it is to be the other way around. So my question to you is this: Should the agenda for each congressional session be set by congressional leaders, or should the president set the agenda for the nation? I don't mean that by constitutional authority, I mean what is the best method for the country.

Martin's America - Home

 

[occupied]

The only real demand President Obama has made of congress is for them to do their damned jobs. As long as they remain gridlocked into this partisan obstructionist bullshit then I support any action he takes that has a clear benfit to the working people of this nation. Remember them, the people who work at real jobs outside the beltway? Boehner wrote them off the very second he grasped the speaker's gavel in his greedy orange hand.

 

[Martinsamerica]

Apparently you missed the point about the question, it had nothing to do with Obama in particular. It is about presidential authority. Would you say the same of Bush or the next republican president - they can demand anything they want of congress? And I don't know what actions you pay attention too, but Obama DEMANDS many things of congress that are simply to further his agenda - which is not always in line with what is right for America.

Martin's America - Home

 

[The Infidel]

The only real demand President Obama has made of congress is for them to do their damned jobs. As long as they remain gridlocked into this partisan obstructionist bullshit then I support any action he takes that has a clear benfit to the working people of this nation. Remember them, the people who work at real jobs outside the beltway? Boehner wrote them off the very second he grasped the speaker's gavel in his greedy orange hand.

Gridlock can be a good thing.

Especially when certain branches of gov't are not doing the right things.

If they were in agreement all the time we'd have some serious issues.

 

[occupied]

So your contention is that the president should sit around waiting for bills to land on his desk and stay out of everything otherwise? When has any president done that and been anything other than a one term, useless placeholder? No, it is his job to set the agenda for his party and hold the legislative branch accountable for their actions or inaction as the case may be, the same can be said for the other two branches as well. The president in this day and age cannot ever just sit on the sidelines, not when he is the scapegoat for every bad thing that happens, he must do what he can to steer policy for the country even if he has to challenge congress to do their stinking jobs rather than sit on their hands.

 

[The Infidel]

So your contention is that the president should sit around waiting for bills to land on his desk and stay out of everything otherwise? When has any president done that and been anything other than a one term, useless placeholder? No, it is his job to set the agenda for his party and hold the legislative branch accountable for their actions or inaction as the case may be, the same can be said for the other two branches as well. The president in this day and age cannot ever just sit on the sidelines, not when he is the scapegoat for every bad thing that happens, he must do what he can to steer policy for the country even if he has to challenge congress to do their stinking jobs rather than sit on their hands.

AND DO IT ALL WITHIN The Constitutional bounds.



Otherwise we have a dictator

 

[skipper]

Overlooking the massive intrusion of the federal government in our daily lives, and the supreme courts complacency of such, using the commerce claus as a basis - I want to pose a question of enumerated presidential authority.

The constitution outlines the separation of powers for the federal government, and the strongest of the three branches of government was intended to be congress. It's almost as simple as first grade civis - congress was to enact laws, and the executive was to enforce them. The supreme court enters to determine the constitutionality of such laws.

Prior to the presidency of Andrew Jackson, American presidents acted as stewards of congressionally enacted laws, they were in essense administrators. Andrew Jackson, who I believe is one of our greatest presidents, took the presidency to the next left. He set the agendas, he used his executive control over the military and law enforcement to circumvent supreme court rulings, and basically flexed the authorotative muscles the constitution did not grant him. Since then presidents have followed suit.

The current president in particular, we have seen him time and again making demands of congress - but as the constitution outlines, it is to be the other way around. So my question to you is this: Should the agenda for each congressional session be set by congressional leaders, or should the president set the agenda for the nation? I don't mean that by constitutional authority, I mean what is the best method for the country.

Martin's America - Home

If the Chief Executive, in addition to other responsibilities, is responsible for developing federal policies and preparing national budgets, how is it possible to be merely an administrator? The current chief probably thought he had to micro-manage this congress.

 

[WillowTree]

The only real demand President Obama has made of congress is for them to do their damned jobs. As long as they remain gridlocked into this partisan obstructionist bullshit then I support any action he takes that has a clear benfit to the working people of this nation. Remember them, the people who work at real jobs outside the beltway? Boehner wrote them off the very second he grasped the speaker's gavel in his greedy orange hand.

you're such a retard. gawd. it's embarassing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only real demand President Obama has made of congress is for them to do their damned jobs. As long as they remain gridlocked into this partisan obstructionist bullshit then I support any action he takes that has a clear benfit to the working people of this nation. Remember them, the people who work at real jobs outside the beltway? Boehner wrote them off the very second he grasped the speaker's gavel in his greedy orange hand.

Seriously?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So your contention is that the president should sit around waiting for bills to land on his desk and stay out of everything otherwise? When has any president done that and been anything other than a one term, useless placeholder? No, it is his job to set the agenda for his party and hold the legislative branch accountable for their actions or inaction as the case may be, the same can be said for the other two branches as well. The president in this day and age cannot ever just sit on the sidelines, not when he is the scapegoat for every bad thing that happens, he must do what he can to steer policy for the country even if he has to challenge congress to do their stinking jobs rather than sit on their hands.

Let me guess, you picked your avatar because it is shiny.

 

[Steelplate]

The people elect a President to govern the country. They choose him from other candidates because his platform is what they want. Therefore, if the people elect a President on his platform.. OF COURSE his "agenda" is what he is going to push.... after all, that's what we ELECTED him to do.

Just because you didn't vote for him doesn't mean that he should not pursue the things that got him elected.

It's complete bullshit to think otherwise.

For instance... let's suppose that Santorum gets the nod. I won't vote for him.. but if the American Public does... and he gets elected president, then he starts a campaign to repeal Roe v Wade and ban Contraception. What would you say to me if I called him a "dictator" because he's pushing his "agenda"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The people elect a President to govern the country. They choose him from other candidates because his platform is what they want. Therefore, if the people elect a President on his platform.. OF COURSE his "agenda" is what he is going to push.... after all, that's what we ELECTED him to do.

Just because you didn't vote for him doesn't mean that he should not pursue the things that got him elected.

It's complete bullshit to think otherwise.

For instance... let's suppose that Santorum gets the nod. I won't vote for him.. but if the American Public does... and he gets elected president, then he starts a campaign to repeal Roe v Wade and ban Contraception. What would you say to me if I called him a "dictator" because he's pushing his "agenda"?

Obama's only agenda was that he is not Bush, he failed miserably at that.

 

[Steelplate]

The people elect a President to govern the country. They choose him from other candidates because his platform is what they want. Therefore, if the people elect a President on his platform.. OF COURSE his "agenda" is what he is going to push.... after all, that's what we ELECTED him to do.

Just because you didn't vote for him doesn't mean that he should not pursue the things that got him elected.

It's complete bullshit to think otherwise.

For instance... let's suppose that Santorum gets the nod. I won't vote for him.. but if the American Public does... and he gets elected president, then he starts a campaign to repeal Roe v Wade and ban Contraception. What would you say to me if I called him a "dictator" because he's pushing his "agenda"?

Obama's only agenda was that he is not Bush, he failed miserably at that.

go away and come back when you actually want to discuss things rather than just boost your post count with one line drivel.

 

[Martinsamerica]

No, my opinion on the matter has not even been stated. I think you are simply being a thin skinned defender of Obama even when it is not warranted. I posed a question, out of curiosity for other opinions. There was a purpose behind stating the foundational principles of the office of president, and the dynamic shift during the Jackson administration - who I also mentioned was a great president, and who in fact is my favorite - it was he who grew the power of the office, and he who opened the gateway for further expansion of that power. My opinion on what is right is probably solely based on what ideology is controlling what branch - in the long run I do feel strong leadership concentrated in one mans hand is far more useful to the greater good than opposing opinions of a republic. But that is not across the board, nor does it mean I support the power grab from Obama - but again, it falls back to ideological differences - that is something i can freely admit.

www.martinamerica.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The people elect a President to govern the country. They choose him from other candidates because his platform is what they want. Therefore, if the people elect a President on his platform.. OF COURSE his "agenda" is what he is going to push.... after all, that's what we ELECTED him to do.

Just because you didn't vote for him doesn't mean that he should not pursue the things that got him elected.

It's complete bullshit to think otherwise.

For instance... let's suppose that Santorum gets the nod. I won't vote for him.. but if the American Public does... and he gets elected president, then he starts a campaign to repeal Roe v Wade and ban Contraception. What would you say to me if I called him a "dictator" because he's pushing his "agenda"?

Obama's only agenda was that he is not Bush, he failed miserably at that.

go away and come back when you actually want to discuss things rather than just boost your post count with one line drivel.

What makes you think I don't want to discuss things? The accuracy of my observations? No one knew what Obama stood for before he was elected because he did not stand for anything but not being Bush. He opposed Bush's timeline for the withdrawal in Iraq, yet followed it faithfully, he opposed Bush not doing enough in Afghanistan, yet he is not devoting enough resources to accomplish anything, he opposed the PATRIOT Act and Warrant less wiretapping, yet has continued both, he opposed Guantanamo, yet has said that he would not release any detainees even if ordered to by the courts. he opposed signing statements, yet he used one that found 17 separate constitutional issues with the NDAA rather than veto it, he opposed recess appointments made by Bush, yet arbitrarily declared the Senate to be in recess so he could make them. I could go on, but the point should be clear by now, Obama ran on the agenda that he is not Bush, and then turned into Cheney.

 

[Martinsamerica]

The people elect a President to govern the country. They choose him from other candidates because his platform is what they want. Therefore, if the people elect a President on his platform.. OF COURSE his "agenda" is what he is going to push.... after all, that's what we ELECTED him to do.

Just because you didn't vote for him doesn't mean that he should not pursue the things that got him elected.

It's complete bullshit to think otherwise.

For instance... let's suppose that Santorum gets the nod. I won't vote for him.. but if the American Public does... and he gets elected president, then he starts a campaign to repeal Roe v Wade and ban Contraception. What would you say to me if I called him a "dictator" because he's pushing his "agenda"?

Agreed, a man who campaigns on a certain platform should attempt to make good on campaign promises. That's not the point though.

 

[Steelplate]

Obama's only agenda was that he is not Bush, he failed miserably at that.

go away and come back when you actually want to discuss things rather than just boost your post count with one line drivel.

What makes you think I don't want to discuss things? The accuracy of my observations? No one knew what Obama stood for before he was elected because he did not stand for anything but not being Bush. He opposed Bush's timeline for the withdrawal in Iraq, yet followed it faithfully, he opposed Bush not doing enough in Afghanistan, yet he is not devoting enough resources to accomplish anything, he opposed the PATRIOT Act and Warrant less wiretapping, yet has continued both, he opposed Guantanamo, yet has said that he would not release any detainees even if ordered to by the courts. he opposed signing statements, yet he used one that found 17 separate constitutional issues with the NDAA rather than veto it, he opposed recess appointments made by Bush, yet arbitrarily declared the Senate to be in recess so he could make them. I could go on, but the point should be clear by now, Obama ran on the agenda that he is not Bush, and then turned into Cheney.

Bullshit.... that's all you want to hear. He ran... AND WAS ELECTED for his views on Health Care, the economic fucking that Wall Street gave us and preventing it from happening again, income inequality and a host of other things. To say that his platform was "I'm not Bush" is simple minded drivel.

Just because his platform is one that you didn't/don't agree with, you choose to see it through myopic eyes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

…but Obama DEMANDS many things of congress that are simply to further his agenda - which is not always in line with what is right for America.

In your opinion.

To an objective observer Obama’s policies are requested of Congress in good faith, as he believes such policies will successfully address the Nation’s issues.

Is your opposition to Obama predicated on partisan politics or an objective, factual analysis of the policies?

 

[Steelplate]

Let's not forget the past 5 years of FOXNews and AM Radio Screaming that Obama is a Marxist Dictator and the influence on the folks that frequent those sources. I think they actually believe that Obama is dictating to Congress.

 

[The Infidel]

…but Obama DEMANDS many things of congress that are simply to further his agenda - which is not always in line with what is right for America.

In your opinion.

To an objective observer Obama’s policies are requested of Congress in good faith, as he believes such policies will successfully address the Nation’s issues.

Is your opposition to Obama predicated on partisan politics or an objective, factual analysis of the policies?

If I can answer this for me... It is a bit of both.

I have analyzed his polices and I think they are meant to bring America to its knees and let the rest of the world catch up to us.

Any president who wants to 'fundamentally' change country is a menace in my opinion.

On a personal level, I think he is arrogant as f**k.