Presidential Power vs. Presidential Authority

[The T]

…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.

He showed his hand in his World Apology Tour in '09

 

[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

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.

That is the point sir, that is what presidents do now, that is not the original design of the office of the president however, or how the original presidents administered the executive branch. As a student of history, I find intriguing the shift in constitutional authority over the decades - as more and more power becomes concentrated in the executive, the legislature dwindles to more of a side note, simply getting in the executives way. So, back to my original question, would you prefer agendas and policies to originate from the executive as is done now in most cases, or in the congress as was outlined in the constitution and which was done up until the Jacksonian era began the change in governmental practice. This is across the board, whether a leftist with marxist leanings is president, or a paleo-conservative. And assume the opposite ideology exists in the congress. What power structure is preferable? This would be standard practice, and cannot change based on he ideology of the president.

Martin's America - Home

 

[Martinsamerica]

…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?

Correct, it is my opinion only that this current office holder does not always put America first, and as such undermines the American people internally and abroad. Still, Obama is not the basis for my question. Lets forget him for a moment.

Martin's America - Home

 

[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?

Correct, it is my opinion only that this current office holder does not always put America first, and as such undermines the American people internally and abroad. Still, Obama is not the basis for my question. Lets forget him for a moment.

Martin's America - Home

That is so hard to do when I see him making a mockery of The Constitution as often as he does.

But.. you do raise a good question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

His views on health care got him elected? If they did I must have missed it.

Income inequality? Seriously? What were his views on that subject prior to 2011? Did he volunteer to give up his million dollar income to help people who make less than he does? I remember him talking about taxing people who made over $250,000, but I never heard him say anything about income inequality until OWS brought it up.

He won the election by giving the impression, not the substance, that he had the answers on the economy, and because McCain admitted he did not have the answers. Turned out one of them was honest.

I would have loved to disagree with his platform, but he never had one.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

Gridlock was the intent of the founders if we could not agree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

…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?

Is your support of him predicated on an objective, factual, analysis of his polices, or is it the result of partisan politics?