Thursday, August 16, 2012

What ever happened to separation of powers.  The congress passes laws, the president signs them into law.   The next president doesn't like the law so can ignore it or just not enforce it.

President Obama’s proposal to waive some of welfare reform’s work requirements is the most recent incident. Is the president's intent to gut welfare reform?  Will he waive work requirements?   We don’t yet actually know what those waivers will be. Right now, we are more or less left to trust the president when he says that he won’t use the waivers to weaken welfare-to-work, an unlikely prospect given the president’s long record of hostility to welfare reform.
An even bigger concern is the president’s assertion that he has the power to waive those requirements in the first place, especially since the law clearly appears to prohibit such waivers. The authors of welfare reform, both legislators and staffers, are on record as saying that they intended to prohibit any waiver of work requirements. Representative David Camp, who helped write the law as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, says “it contained specific language prohibiting any administration from granting states waivers from the work requirement.”
The administration, on the other hand, contends that they have found a loophole because the work requirements are mentioned, tangentially, in another section of the law over which the administration does have waiver power. That may or may not stand up in court, but it certainly seems to violate the spirit of the welfare-reform law.
While much of this might seem like an arcane legal dispute, it is part of a disturbing trend. The Obama administration has developed a penchant for unilateral action that would make even the most ardent advocate of an imperial presidency blush. On issue after issue, the president insists that “we can’t wait.” He won’t wait for a Congress that may not agree with his ideas for remaking America; he will simply act all by himself.

Immigration laws.
Welfare reform.

What's next?????

9 comments:

  1. "What's next????? "

    What's next is that every successive POTUS will continue to do what they want until they are blocked. When you have thrown down a gauntlet and made it clear you will openly oppose and block everything the POTUS does, they have no incentive to work with you. Let's be clear, it's not like Democrats have not thrown down similar gauntlets and it's not like Obama is the first POTUS to use executive power to go around something he doesn't like.

    Are we going to fix this by doubling down on legislators who will promise to never compromise?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is the key, until they are blocked. Not going to happen the way things are today. Both houses democrat, they write the Prez anything he would like. Split houses, you see the outcome of that. Both Republican? A little easier done if they had a super majority in both houses. The only hammer they had was the budget. Let it go into default, instead of passing another 6 month CR.

      So here we sit, no change or hope of change until November. Even then the change may not be the change we want.

      Delete
  2. I agree with you to some extent but I see the presidents roll somewhat different. The presidents job, though its various agencies is to enforce laws created by congress. It is not to run his own agenda. The constitution and the people never granted that position the power to create laws. If congress (hopefully with the will of the people) creates a law, it is not for the president to dismantle the law if it doesn't suit his/her agenda. At some point congress will be in a power position so overwhelming that it will defund the presidents ability to do anything.....Which is, at the end of the day, within the power of congress...

    ReplyDelete
  3. So you are basically saying you agree with the Grover Norquist (a lobbyist) philosophy of government which is that the POTUS is a figure head whose only job is to use his digits to sign what congress gives him. Can you name me a single POTUS who has never used his power to go around a congress determined to knee cap him? Recess appointments? Can you tell me Bush never ever chose not to enforce some law he didn't agree with?

    Right now, the Republicans control congress and what I frequently here is that the Democrats, who control TWO houses are being unreasonable because they don't rubber stamp pure Republican bills coming out of congress like Boehnor's stupid repeated attempts to overturn Obama care. Your point is not without merit. However, it's a point that Republicans make ONLY when they are not in power.

    Again, can you name a single POTUS who has never done this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never seem to get my replies in the correct place.... below as I am sure you will figure is to you. With regards to any previous president not stretching the powers of the office, you are correct, all have because being the type of person who seeks such a powerful position they will push for absolute power if they could get away with it..... it is up to a responsible electorate and a representative legislative and an impartial judiciary to keep the office in check...The problem here is that the government is representative only to the highest bidder and the appointment of the judiciary was broken with the 17th amendment.....

      by the way... I'm not as partisan as you may believe, have never voted a party ticket and my last 5 presidential votes didn't stand a chance of winning because partisans on both sides keep saying it is the other sides fault....

      Delete
    2. Not long ago, I read a book by the President of STRATFOR who is very likely not someone I would politically agree with. His main premise was that, like it or not, America has become an empire. And though the ideas of empire and republic tend to oppose each other, America has found (put?) itself in a position where it needs to protect it's empire to protect it's republic. Why is this relevant to this discussion?

      Though I may not like it, I accept that at times, a POTUS will need to do things that go against the grain of both our constitution AND our principles of democracy. When we collectively play a game of outrage because one particular POTUS has not lived up a standard that no POTUS has ever lived up to, I just feel like it's not helpful. You said it very well, it is up to a responsible electorate, a representative legislative and impartial judiciary to keep the office in check. What we have instead is a blatantly partisan setup wherein the power in power tells the other party to screw off.

      I've complained that I don't like Reid and I don't like his tactic of shutting down every bill that comes from the congress that he doesn't agree with. That said, McConnell is no less partisan and Boehner is the same. When Bush faced the same kind of opposition, he did what every POTUS would do in that situation, he re-wrote the rules to cover his agenda. But look at our voting process. We've gerrymandered most of the country to silence opposition and now we have all the voter stuff going on while we play this game that the change is crucial to protect democracy when we can't even prove it's a problem to begin with.

      Look at that asshole from Indiana who said that compromise is stupid and that we need to make all of America decide one way or the other which direction we head. Really? is that what the founding fathers thought was best. I dunno, I keep going back to my constant premise which is that Washington will be no better and no worse then the aspirations we cast on it at election time.

      Delete
  4. Republicans my like the argument when it suits them but I don't think that Democrats hold back with regard to Republican presidential indiscretions. As far as being in agreement with Grover Norquist; a clock is right twice a day. Tell me the powers that the president actually has that defunding by the congress would not effect or a down vote with regards to treaties? Might be able to sneak in some recess appointments but beyond that and the power to pull troops out of a combat situation what power does he really have that the power of the purse cannot negate? The real power of the president is to convince the population that his issues are important enough for them to write/phone/email their representative for action.... The president was NEVER elected to write law....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scott,

    Good view of what you coinsider the real power of the president in your last post.

    Max,

    You stated that right now congress is controlled by the republicans. You know that's not correct.

    Also, I'm not sure there was much compromising between minority republicans in both chambers in the first two years of this administration.

    More generally, I agree about the disturbing trend. Sure, presidents bend and twist things, but this guy has raised it up a notch or two. I thought the point of the article was in reference to his decision to put off enforcing the deportation of young illegal immigrants. An off-point thought: I see that as blatant pandering. But then, little surprises me anymore from the White House.

    The problem with purse string power, though, is that this Senate is hardly going to close up the cookie jar for Obama.

    Carpe weekendem, all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the congress, the Republicans are the majority party and John Boehner, a Republican, is the speaker of the house. In the senate, the Democrats are the majority party and Harry Reid is the majority leader. If you want to generically lump both houses together as "congress", well I guess you can say the Republicans are not in control of congress.

      At one point in time, if you controlled the senate by a slim majority, like the one the Democrats now have, you could pass a lot of things on simple majority votes. In today's new rules of the senate, the majority party can not pass legislation if the minority party decides to fillibuster the debate. To end such debates, you need sixty votes to agree to end the debate and then you can have your vote. Effectively, Mitch McConnell can nearly negate the Democrats majority.

      By simple majority, the Democrats control the senate and the Republicans control the congress. When it comes to how legislation is actually passed, the only real control that Reid has, which is not inconsequential, is to block purely partisan bills from Congress. If you like to claim moral high ground in the midst of political bullshit Jean, you can say that the Republicans don't control the congress. But, if you are talking about who actually controls the legislative process, please tell me where I am missing that the Republicans don't control the congress.

      Delete