Obama to Dems: I'll act with or without Congress

[azurnoir]

Source: yahoo

President Barack Obama has told Senate Democrats he plans to use his executive authority to act in 2014 when Congress stands in his way.

Obama met with senators from his own party Wednesday at the White House. The White House says Obama and Democrats discussed proposals to raise the minimum wage and efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul. Education initiatives and jobs measures were also on the agenda.

The White House says Obama wants to work with Congress to make progress, but will also act on his own to get things done.

The meeting was the first such session of 2014 and comes two weeks before Obama is set to deliver his State of the Union address.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-dems-39-ll-act-without-congress-004736977--politics.html

---

'bout time

[Fearless]

1. Better not be on the TPP.

[daleanime]

6. My first thought too....

[newfie11]

12. Ironic if he uses it for TPP

God help us if that happens.

[pampango]

20. Let's focus on something he did not mention rather than the policies he specifically pointed to?

The White House says Obama and Democrats discussed proposals to raise the minimum wage and efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul. Education initiatives and jobs measures were also on the agenda.

The White House says Obama wants to work with Congress to make progress, but will also act on his own to get these things done.

Do you hope he equally timid on the issues of immigration reform, raising the minimum wage, education initiatives and jobs measures for fear that there may be some liberals who each disapprove of one or the other?

How in the world would he unilaterally enact the TPP anyway?

[Fearless]

30. Ok then let's hope it's not the Race to the Top program.

Arne Duncan and corporate education, etc.

[freshwest]

2. Oh, Izzy will call for impeachment. I love the howls of wingnuts in the morning. n/t

[Prophet 451]

5. Seconded

The wingers are already bursting to impeach for any reason they can dream up.

[Cha]

3. Prez gave them more than enough chances.. Please

Proceed Mr President.

[DeSwiss]

4. ''I'll act with or without Congress,'' he explained?

''I'll act with or without Congress,'' he implored?
''I'll act with or without Congress,'' he argued?
''I'll act with or without Congress,'' he stated flatly?
''I'll act with or without Congress,'' he whispered?
''I'll act with or without Congress,'' he threatened?

- You never know which one yer gettin' nor why. Until later......

K&R

[NBachers]

7. Well, good- That lets slippery Congressional Democrats off the hook.

"Hey, I didn't support it, but he ordered it any way. I am not accountable for this."

[SkatmanRoth]

14. It is part of the President's job to protect his party

We cannot bring about progressive change unless there are more of us in the Legislative Branch than Republicans.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. +1,000 n/t

[OnyxCollie]

22. You would think so.

In spite of the long-accepted, constitutionally sound, independence-preserving method of appointing interim U.S. Attorneys, the appointment process was radically changed with the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006. Removed was the interbranch appointment from the district court; the Attorney General could now make interim U.S. Attorney appointments. Also eliminated was the 120 day period that interim U.S. Attorneys could stay in office before a district court could appoint an interim U.S. Attorney to fill the vacancy. Interim U.S. Attorneys could now remain in office indefinitely, or until the President appointed a U.S. Attorney to the district. Interim U.S. Attorney appointments bypassed Senate confirmation, leaving the determination of qualification to the Justice Department.

The insertion of this new clause into the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act went unnoticed. Senators were at a loss to explain how the clause made its way into the bill. It was later determined that the Justice Department had requested Brett Tolman to insert the clause into the bill (Kiel, 2007). At the time the clause was inserted Mr. Tolman was a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is a member. Sen. Specter responded to inquiries about his involvement with the clause by saying, “I do not slip things in” (Kiel, 2007, p. 1). According to Sen. Specter, the principal reason for the change was to resolve “separation of power issues” (Kiel, 2007, p. 2). The Senate voted to repeal the clause in February 2007 (P.L. 110-34, 2007). At the time of this writing, Mr. Tolman is a U.S. Attorney for the state of Utah.

~snip~

A report from Professors Emeritus Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan of the University of Missouri and Illinois State University respectively, shows that of 375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. “U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops” (Shields & Cragan, 2007, p. 1).

So why didn't Obama clean house as soon as he took office, replacing all the US Attorneys (like Clinton did) in the politicized DoJ?

US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

[red dog 1]

8. Thanks for posting, azurnoir

So far, only Yahoo and Bloomberg Business Week has covered this news item, so much for MSM.

[Lasher]

9. The Unitary Executive

We screamed bloody murder when Junior did it. Now that Obama's President we don't see much of a problem with it, do we?

[Nanjing to Seoul]

10. Let's see how he attempts it? Remember, FDR tried to pack the courts and people stomped him

Based on his track record, I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

Bush's crap was easy to see through (rule by corporate oligarchy).

[merrily]

13. The Constitution had no prohibition against enlarging the court.

It had been done before FDR, more than once I think.

I see no problem with it. IMO, "court packing" was an unnecessarily pejorative term.

If Obama stays within his Constitutional powers, I see no problem with this. (He may be bluffing anyway.) If he doesn't stay within his Constitutional powers, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

21. my thoughts exactly.

[Sherman A1]

11. Precisely

One has to wonder what will be the precedents established.

[hughee99]

53. It's different now, because... eh... <weak excuse to follow>.

[tom_kelly]

15. My hopes have been diminished

I've been disappointed too many times by my President. I'll save my reactions until I see progress. Sorry.

[Mass]

16. He can start now.

For example, I imagine he does not need Congress to refuse Federal contracts to companies that do not follow labor laws or that pay people less than $10 an hour. That would be a good start.

Also, he could ask Harry Reid to pass the very few bills (less than 5, I suspect) that passed the House with either an unanimous vote or on a voice vote and ask for a vote on them. Actually, some of them may help, even though not by a lot. (Obviously, he could ask Boehner the same thing, but it would be a loss of his time).

Also, if they think unemployment benefits is that important, why do they recess next week. The Senate has the possibility to stay open and to stop the House to go on recess. It will not be more theatric than what we have seen earlier this week, and it will show some sense of urgency.

[Doctor_J]

27. He could have started in 2009 when we had huge majorities

He's blowing smoke, unless of course he means he's going to bypass DEMS to get TPP and KeystoneXL. Then I guess it makes sense.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Do you think it would have been wiser ...

for President Obama to tell Congress that he would act on his own in his first term or now, after 6 years of obstruction and gridlock?

That's not how democracies work.

[azurnoir]

24. No but after nearly 6 years it's about time don't you think?

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. Well ...

If you're really interested ... google: Republican Obstruction Polling.

Pick search results from 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 (To ensure comparing Apples to Apples, pick the same polling outfit ... I found CNN has done the most polling on the topic).

Look at the numbers ... You will find that it took until mid-2012 for a plurality of (self identifying) non-Democrats to agree that republicans have been obstructing ... and we are STILL not to a point where a majority of (self-identifying) republican agree. More importantly, it has taken until 2013 for a majority of non-Democrats, and plurality of (self-identifying) Independents, to agree that the gop has been obstructing.

Democrats need all Democrats and a majority of Independents to agree that the gop is responsible for the obstruction/gridlock, before such a move by President Obama has a shot to stand.

So, with that information (and how to find it), how would you answer your "After 6 years, isn't it about time ..." question?

[azurnoir]

28. and this conflicts how with what I said?

that was my point but thanks for filling in the gaps

seems you have no problems with this though

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014699068#post1

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Just pointing out ...

our frustration with "how long it took him to ..." is misplaced when looking at the landscape. The electorate (not the President) is just now getting to the point that they would accept President Obama acting on his own to extend U/C, raise the minimum wage, or anything else.

I am at a loss as to how your link is related to anything I have written.

I support raising the minimum wage for all workers; but recognize that President Obama only has the constitutional authority to act on his own on behalf of employees of federal contractors.

While I have no doubt that there are some (several) Democratic congress folks that oppose the increase because they believe it'll foreclose on their fund-raising and/or inside tip/after Washington opportunities, I suspect that the vast majority oppose it because they are more convinced by the mythology that is conservative economics; than real economics.

{BTW: though I have not researched the 2,000,000 people number ... I doubt that there are 2,000,000 federal workers current working at $7.25/hr or less than $10.10/hr.}

[azurnoir]

34. our frustration is not only with Congress

it is also with the POTUS and Dems in general for trying to play nice-however necessary politically speaking that is

as to your 2,000,000 number I seriously doubt many federal contractors work for minimum wage so there we agree

that said my link was because on that thread you seem in favor and on this one you do not

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. You are frustrated by ...

what you admit is politically necessary?

that said my link was because on that thread you seem in favor and on this one you do not

In favor of what? I still don't understand ... perhaps there are some words missing?

[azurnoir]

37. so something can not be simultaneously frustrating

and understood as politically necessary? Wish my world was that cut and dried but unfortunately it's not

you seem on favor of the POTUS using executive power on that thread but not so much here, why or are you picking and choosing?

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. It's not cut and dried ...

it's called accepting reality ... I strive to act based on what IS; rather than, how I want it to be/wish it were.

This thread is about President Obama signaling he would act on his own to effectuate the raising of the MW (and other things) ... The thread you linked to was about President Obama signaling he would act on his own to effectuate the raising of the MW.

My position in both threads has been supportive of President acting on his own to effectuate the raising of the MW. Where do you read my taking a different position?

[azurnoir]

39. I read you as being contrary for reasons I do not quite understand

and IMO being both frustrated and understanding of "what is" is not wishful thinking

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Okay ...

I support President Obama using his constitutional authority to act on his own to raise the MW on federal contractors.

[azurnoir]

41. but not jobs education or albeit not mentioned in OP restoring unemployment benefits?

myself I support using his executive authority on domestic economic measures

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. We were talking about the minimum wage; but ...

Yes, I support President Obama utilizing his executive authority on all domestic economic measures, so long as he has the constitutional authority to do so.

Raising the MW for federal contractors, is clearly within his Constitutional authority; extending U/C, creating jobs, the education stuff ... not so much.

While President Obama can issue the Executive Order, just as with the closure of GITMO, Congress has to FUND the action.

[azurnoir]

43. Congressional funding is where his veto power comes into play

and yes that could get messy fast

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Okay ...

I am, now, official confused. What does President Obama's veto power have to do with this?

[azurnoir]

47. Really? What does Obama's veto power have to do with his over ruling the House?

or taking action where they will not?
Clearly you seem to disapprove of this except for within your own scope that being minimum wage for a very few which you were going on about, that's fine it's your opinion and we all have them

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Yes ...

What does President Obama's veto power have to do with his "taking action where they will not."

I would love to see the minimum Wage raised for every worker ... unfortunately, a President does not have the power under the constitution to issue an Executive Order and decree all wages for all minimum workers be raised; he/she does, however, have the power under the constitution to issue an Executive Order to affect government contractors.

I would love to see U/C extended; but I do not see how a President can extend U/C (and fund) that extension, without congress.

I would love to see jobs created; but I do not see how a President can create (and fund) that jobs program, without congress.

Perhaps your are aware of some provision in the U.S. Constitution that grants the President the power to ignore the constitution because we really want him to do something.

And yes, I do have opinions ... but as the internet demonstrates over and over again: not all opinions are based in fact.

[groundloop]

19. This news is already getting right wingers riled up...

I heard some assholes on the radio this morning ranting about the President DARING to sneak around behind Congress' back to do things, and that he's proving he should be impeached.

Of course they never mention the fact that the GOPers in the House have refused to do anything except obstruct, and that there are many things a President can accomplish within Constitutional boundaries that don't need approval from Congress.

[OnyxCollie]

23. Except when it comes to Guantanamo Bay.

[Doctor_J]

26. After 6 years????

[djean111]

29. I think he may just really want to do this for the TPP........

[azurnoir]

32. IMO that remains to be seen

fast tracking of TPP would have to pass first and that remains to be seen

[djean111]

45. You are right - it remains to be seen, all of it.

That's why i can't get all cheery or excited about another little speech.
Best to wait and see what really happens.

[riqster]

49. Can't. Illegal. Congress must ratify such treaties.

He CAN do things within his power as executive, like he did with DADT, DOMA, and such.

[djean111]

50. Fast Track sort of goes around Congress.

As I understand it, Fast Track means Obama will sign the TPP before Congress can vote on it.
So much for Democracy.
And, also as I understand it, not that much of the TPP actually deals with trade.
Looks like it strips away sovereignty of countries and hands it to "Investor States".
Reeks.

[polynomial]

31. He is gonna call on the American people

Actually President Obama should review and make sure the nationalized Amtrak is completely reviewed for both passenger and freight transportation. For my view already controlled by Congress. However, please no old rail roaders to be head of operations. Hire and train all new personal, perhaps many from the army core of engineers to run what is called the “Peace Bridge”.

This is a rarity talked about a bridge or tunnel across the Bering Straits from Alaska to Siberia. Swift all electric “no fossil fuel” state of art electronics and excavations. Of course agreements with each government. From my view it is a new happening because of the past decades with European governments it has been an trilogy of war for over fifty years let’s try something new. All electric no fossil fuel here to be the pivot point for infrastructure change. Mans quest to challenge the environment of other worlds can be derived from the experience gained right here on earth. Then Perhaps Newt Gingrich can get his wish to colonize the moon. That could be the pivot point to change to electric motor cars rather than to continue fossil fuel which would help climate change.

Many could imagine taking a trip in the morning, then stop in Paris, London, Greece in the late afternoon with economical cost. Freight transportation that encourages cultural exchange.

In today’s rail road operations the rail roads are biased with hubris and an arrogance that other industries parallel to. Management retaliation and retribution by management is obnoxious in regular routine rail road operations. Currently an OSHA claim is in progress that challenges the Union Pacific rail road’s use of the basic safety and training briefing. This needs to be looked at seriously before any new trade is done.

The Union Pacific Rail Road is trying to ditch injuries or safety issues in both types of briefings, safety and training. President Obama should review such crimes and hammer the rail roads with maximum punitive damages incurred by individuals because of that abuse. This would signal to the industry that the government will not tolerate safety abuse in the work place. That would add the confidence to jobs and a work environment to build the peace bridge and the basic infrastructure here in America that is way, way overdue…

[Not Sure]

36. wtf?

Unless there's another oil train explosion that kills a bunch of people, I doubt the President gives any attention to railroads. The only thing politicians seem interested in at all regarding railroads is Railroad Retirement and how they can get their hands on the money.

[blue-wave]

46. Start at first light tomorrow Mr. President!

The repugs are most despicable. They reneged on the UI (unemployment insurance) deal from the last manufactured (by them) government shutdown.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/16/killing-hundreds-thousands-jobs-blocking-ui-republicans-vacation.html

I agree with Bernie Sanders, it's time to use the so-called nuclear option in the senate...let the majority of 50 votes minimum rule. I'm am soooo tired of the democrats not playing hard ball with those ass wipe repugs. Go Bernie!

And how I love Elizabeth Warren! Stop being the reactive party and take the political offensive now. No more deals, they don't honor them because they never had any honor. Be the democratic party that delivers.....

[mother earth]

52. I could not possibly agree more. Take this meme to an originial OP, and welcome to DU!

[NorthCarolina]

51. He must have been referring to TPP. nt