"...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln."

[elucidator]

A pointless exercise, as they most likely realized there was little prospect that he would ever have any such authority.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

I have to say this point is really lame and an attempt at clouding the issue, the context is clear, unilateral actions from a president deserve the highest form of scrutiny and could lead to the removal of the president. Nixon found out that the president needs proper justification for his or her actions and when the acts of a president are clearly improper even the president’s own party will oppose him/her.

This ACA action we are talking was not just a decision made up by the President.

So let’s consider a hypothetical future Nixon who holds office with large but tame majorities in the House and Senate. Unlike Richard Nixon, Future Nixon’s identical actions don’t cause the House to hold impeachment hearings. They simply take no action.

Does this mean that Future Nixon’s wiretap and coverup actions are within the Presidential powers?

[Bricker]

@Bricker

Ok. Who does that finding? Who is the “one?” in that sentence?

@GIGObuster

Clearly not the stupid pamphleteers of the WSJ.

The one is many. As usual there are leads of the government organizations that raised the concern early, over them there are committees that oversee those leads and government organizations, gross and bad faith acts can be identified there. And indeed this movie of pumped up accusations from the right is just predictable from there.

No matter how justified a change is reported that is needed, some member of those committees will complain and launch investigations, no problem with that.

The point to me is that if it was as serious as the WSJ sorry piece tries to make it, then very swift action would had be seen to take this quickly to congress and the courts, with so many rabid tea party people in the mix it would not be surprising, but in the end the congress critters have to confront their constituents and judges have to see if the complaint is not stupid, in the end a very good reason is still needed, not just a lousy opinion from a conservative paper.

Thanks for listing who it ISN’T.

Who is it?

[Bricker]

@Donald_Rump

Interestingly–I didn’t realize this until running a quick Google search just now–Romney is actually on the record saying that on Day 1, he would direct the secretary of health and human services to grant an Obamacare waiver to all 50 states. Obviously, Charles Krauthammer, the WSJ journal, and everyone else raising hell about Obama’s lawlessness was silent on whether this would exceed his presidential authority.

So if Romney had won and done it, would it have been within his powers?

(A) Yes
(B) No
(C) No only if the courts and/or Congress take action to say “no”
(D) the powers of a Democratic president differ from the powers of a Republican president

I can’t help but notice how no one really wants to answer this question.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Thanks for listing who it ISN’T.

Who is it?

:rolleyes:

Already mentioned after who is not. What I see is that you do not like the answer, but to be more precise around your missing the point maneuvering they were people like Mark J. Mazur, the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/pages/continuing-to-implement-the-aca-in-a-careful-thoughtful-manner-.aspx

Over the past several months, the Administration has been engaging in a dialogue with businesses - many of which already provide health coverage for their workers - about the new employer and insurer reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so. We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action.

Once again, the burden is to show that that does not justify the delay.

[Bricker]

@Ravenman

Well, that’s a very puerile response.

Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d 611.

And also, Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26.

It seems abundantly clear that the President may take action in self-defense of the country – even before the first blow is landed – to insure that the Constitution is “not self-destructive.” I do not know anyone who would contend that such a power extends to a President attacking other countries if the President simply felt it fun, rather than necessary to the country’s self-defense.

It should be patently obvious that the President’s motivation for attacking another country without the approval of Congress is a power that depends on why the President thinks the use of the Armed Forces is necessary. If you can muster a serious response to why this is not the case, in your view, I’m all ears.

Are you? Bush had a motive with respect to Iraq. It was based on either a lie or a mistake of fact, depending on who you believe.

How does that get analyzed?

Otherwise, it would seem that you are saying that a future President would be as prohibited from striking first against a surprise foreign invasion force headed straight for our border, as would a President who might seek to invade Canada in order to carry out a genocidal rampage; simply because it’s only their actions, not their intent or any circumstances of the facts, that count.

I’m trying to get other people to explain what rules, if any, exist. Right now, there’s only one rule coming through loud and clear, and I have to admit it’s a rule that explains everyone’s positions perfectly: If we approve of the President’s actions and reasons, then he has the power. If we don’t, he doesn’t.

You and your band of merry interlocutors are cordially invited to take a position that contradicts this rule, or offer up another formulation more accurate. So far, as you can plainly see, everyone is dancing around the plain question to avoid saying something about presidential powers that might be later used to justify a different president doing the same thing.

[Donald_Rump]

@Bricker

So if Romney had won and done it, would it have been within his powers?

(A) Yes
(B) No
(C) No only if the courts and/or Congress take action to say “no”
(D) the powers of a Democratic president differ from the powers of a Republican president

B) No.

I would argue there are important qualitative differences between delaying enforcing (due to good-faith practical considerations) and outright refusal to ever enforce (due to disagreement with the policy itself).

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

:rolleyes:

Already mentioned after who is not. What I see is that you do not like the answer, but to be more precise around your missing the point maneuvering they were people like Mark J. Mazur, the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Featured Stories | U.S. Department of the Treasury
Once again, the burden is to show that that does not justify the delay.

Wait – so you’re saying that the person responsible for judging the President’s actions as being proper or improper is the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy? A guy who is a member of the Executive Branch, appointed by the President, and who the President can fire for any reason at all?

Ok, good. That’s the rule?

And that rule would apply to a Republican president who appoints his own Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, correct?

[Bricker]

@Donald_Rump

B) No.

I would argue there are important qualitative differences between delaying enforcing (due to good-faith practical considerations) and outright refusal to ever enforce (due to disagreement with the policy itself).

So it’s literally OK for Obama and not OK for Romney, based on their good faith?

Then my next question is the one I’ve been tormenting GIGObuster with: who decides the question?

(Thanks for at least answering, though).

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

So if Romney had won and done it, would it have been within his powers?

(A) Yes
(B) No
(C) No only if the courts and/or Congress take action to say “no”
(D) the powers of a Democratic president differ from the powers of a Republican president

I can’t help but notice how no one really wants to answer this question.

Because it is incomplete

And it is leading the witness.

Really, even the principal at a school I worked sides with the kids when a question in the quiz was missing a very important item.

So once again, I can not help but noticing how clearly you are only attempting to willfully ignore the point of the lack of validity of what few politicians and pundits are claiming to be the the reason to accuse the president.

They need a better reason to base this tempest in their tea party teapot.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Because it is incomplete

And it is leading the witness.

Then complete it. But then answer your completed question, instead of dodging by pointing out how terrible the motives are of those who ask it.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Wait – so you’re saying that the person responsible for judging the President’s actions as being proper or improper is the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy? A guy who is a member of the Executive Branch, appointed by the President, and who the President can fire for any reason at all?

Ok, good. That’s the rule?

Please, you are like the lawyer that always loses to Perry Mason in the TV sitcom.

That is not the point. Bring me evidence that what he declared on the record is not true.

@Bricker

And that rule would apply to a Republican president who appoints his own Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, correct?

Once gain, in small words:

We need evidence that what they report is not the truth.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Then complete it. But then answer your completed question, instead of dodging by pointing out how terrible the motives are of those who ask it.

I don’t think this is case, you need to look first at yourself. Do not dodge the evidence that is needed, and that is to find the evidence that shows the lie on what the Treasury reported and what Obama used for the justification.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

I don’t think this is case, you need to look first at yourself. Do not dodge the evidence that is needed, and that is to find the evidence that shows the lie on what the Treasury reported and what Obama used for the justification.

I accepted it. The Treasury’s report, according to you, is sufficient. Now I am asking: would this still be true if a future Treasury report said something different? (And I am pointing out that the President appoints the Treasury officials.)

I am not dodging that. I accept your statement. TREASURY.

Now, you? Still Treasury, under a GOP president, GOP Treasury Secretary, and GOP Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy?

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Please, you are like the lawyer that always loses to Perry Mason in the TV sitcom.

That is not the point. Bring me evidence that what he declared on the record is not true.
Once gain, in small words:

We need evidence that what they report is not the truth.

So. Now we have a new rule. Yes, the Treasury, unless we have evidence that what they say isn’t true.

Ok. Is THAT the rule?

[Gadarene]

@Donald_Rump

B) No.

I would argue there are important qualitative differences between delaying enforcing (due to good-faith practical considerations) and outright refusal to ever enforce (due to disagreement with the policy itself).

This is trivially true, and it is true with respect to how courts would interpret “unreasonable delay” under an APA challenge, as well.

Reasonableness is tied to good faith justification. It is unsurprising that Bricker refuses to understand this point.

[Bricker]

@Gadarene

This is trivially true, and it is true with respect to how courts would interpret “unreasonable delay” under an APA challenge, as well.

Reasonableness is tied to good faith justification. It is unsurprising that Bricker refuses to understand this point.

I have already said I am not talking about what would rise to the level of an APA challenge. Surely there is some quanta of “not following the law” that doesn’t rise to something sustainable under the APA but is still “not following the law.”

Is there? Or not?

[Bricker]

Suppose the Future GOP President took a different tack: he simply refused to defend the law. Let’s say that of the many extant challenges working their way through the courts, at 12:01 on January 20, 2017 he simply instructs the Solicitor General to drop all appellate defense in court.

Is THAT within his powers?

(Remember, that’s what California did for Prop 8)

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

I accepted it. The Treasury’s report, according to you, is sufficient. Now I am asking: would this still be true if a future Treasury report said something different? (And I am pointing out that the President appoints the Treasury officials.)

I am not dodging that. I accept your statement. TREASURY.

Now, you? Still Treasury, under a GOP president, GOP Treasury Secretary, and GOP Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy?

Well, you are moving the goalposts again, so what if the Treasury tells me I can not get a pony?

It is still the same, I need to find if there is evidence that the pony machine was broken and there is a justifiable delay.

What I’m saying is that that was supposed to be the next step, verification and then we can follow with condemnations to the courts and congress, if no investigation is coming (and this issue was reported more than a month ago) the only thing we have seen is just pouts against the president so I have to once again dismiss these claims.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Well, you are moving the goalposts again, so what if the Treasury tells me I can not get a pony?

It is still the same, I need to find if there is evidence that the pony machine was broken and there is a justifiable delay.

What I’m saying is that that was supposed to be the next step, verification and then we can follow with condemnations to the courts and congress, if no investigation is coming (and this issue was reported more than a month ago) the only thing we have seen is just pouts against the president so I have to once again dismiss these claims.

Do you imagine you’re answering the points I raise, or you can you see you’re simply saying stuff that might be vaguely related to the point under discussion? I’m genuinely curious. Is it a language barrier?

Please state the rule for determining if an action is in the President’s powers.