Wrong. Congress passes laws, and the President can sign them, or not, as he likes. Sure, the President has the bully pulpit, and can make as many suggestions as he wants. That doesn’t obligate the Congress to take him seriously.
IOW, cite for the bolded portion of your post? Remember, a link to a liberal blog is most definitely not a cite.
I don’t know any liberal blogs, but you should read elementary school textbooks about how a bill is passed in Congress and the influential role the president often has in key legislation; I think there’s even a little video they play for elementary school kids.
You can also free free to comment in any substantive way that you’re capable of on the following discussion of constitutional hardball from which I cite a few selected excerpts describing this recent plague of lunacy:
… what Harvard constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet (then at Georgetown) labeled “constitutional hardball” in a 2004 article. He defined it more succinctly in a 2014 blog post thus: “Constitutional hardball consists of practices that are constitutionally permissible but that breach previously accepted norms of political behavior, adopted to ensure the smooth functioning of a government in a two-party world, engaged in precisely to disrupt that smooth functioning.”
… the tendency toward apocalyptic conservatism, seen most clearly, nationally, in the repeated government shutdown threats, and threatened default on the national debt. While these threats essentially function as forms of constitutional hardball, they simultaneously express an attitude of profound alienation and animosity to the Lockean concept of the social contract. If the contract is destroyed as a result, so much the better, according to their logic.
… even as Obama went out of his way to make nice with Republicans, they responded with an onslaught of constitutional hardball moves, mostly falling into three broad categories. First, most directly, congressional Republicans acted to obstruct the basic functioning of his presidency … Obama had more nominees blocked prior to the rule change than all other presidents before him combined … Not to be outdone, House Republicans brought America right to the brink of its first debt default in history in July 2011, and shut the government down for two weeks in October 2013. The debt ceiling had never been the subject of such legislative blackmail before. The shutdown strategy (as opposed to brief, partial lapses) had been used just once previously—by Newt Gingrich, disastrously, in late 1995 and early 1996. There have been repeated threats to engage in both tactics again. The overall aim of these legislative obstructions was to bring everything to a halt, to make Obama’s presidency a complete failure—rather like George W. Bush’s had been.
… The GOP’s second major front of constitutional hardball in the Obama era has been the attack on voting rights centered in state legislatures, as Republicans took actions to deprive Democratic voting blocks of fair representation. They both proposed and passed a massive outpouring of voter-suppression laws, which clearly have the power to shift electoral outcomes at all levels.
… [The third front of constitutional hardball tactics] range from sporadic enthusiasm for secession to a more sustained, though still marginal interest in using state legislatures to rewrite the Constitution. As I explained here in January 2014, this plan, if successful, could give 12 percent of the population control of writing new constitutional law. Connecting these still-fringe ideas to the mainstream is the legitimating ethos that sustains them both, an ethos epitomized by birtherism, which now has a solid majority of GOP voters doubting Obama’s citizenship, and hence, the legitimacy of his presidency. The birther mythos is the ultimate justification for constitutional hardball in opposing Obama.
Oh, my, they could make those words dance! And they kept so many letters in which they slag each other. Besides the letters and pamphlets, there were newspapers that mainly existed to propagandize against the other party. They would submit anonymous letters to these papers making accusations or supporting or tearing down pending legislation.
A couple of chapters ago, Hamilton submitted an anonymous letter supporting an earlier anonymous letter that he had submitted. He sock-puppeted!
This one made me think of the Dope. It’s not very flowery. “He could not write a sentence without misspelling some word.”
The Jacobins in question were the ones that ended up in charge of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.