Shouldn’t you be talking to the Democrats who still have seats in Congress? I’m guessing they might be a little more willing to listen to your advice.
What a bizarro mirror universe interpretation. Is that what the Right is doing now? Claiming Obama won’t cooperate with Congress even though it’s Congress that swore to do nothing but refuse to cooperate and actively obstruct?
Obama said he didn’t need Congress and that he had a pen and a phone.
A cite and some context would be too much to ask for?
Hey, context is for suckers. It’s much better to avoid all the messy details, and focus on the things that confirm your strongly held prejudices and reinforce your innate ignorance.
Hush, now. They are preparing to nail their pecker to a tree, they have selected the hammer, here’s the backswing…
Don’t interrupt.
I suppose the kindest thing I can say about the republican interpretation of this issue is “it’s not quite as egregiously bullshit as ‘you didn’t build that’ was”.
I suppose if Congress would like the people to amend the constitution and eliminate the office of the President and his powers, they are free to do so. That would require Congress to actively do something though, so no worries.
Gee whiz, it wasn’t that long ago.
*Jan 14, 2014 1:20pm
While he expressed a willingness to work with Congress to pass legislation in 2014, President Obama made clear Tuesday that he’s also prepared to use executive actions to advance his economic priorities, readying two simple tools in his presidential toolbox — a pen and a phone.
“We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” President Obama told reporters before a meeting with his Cabinet Tuesday. “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”*
Obama knows that he doesn’t need Congress in order for Obama to run the government. After all, he’s supposed to be some kind of Constitutional expert.
Context is important. You can’t just cherry pick one statement and pretend it’s proof that Obama is usurping the government. You know what’s also well known? Republicans agreeing to do nothing but obstruct. Treasonous, if you ask me. The president isn’t a ceremonial King with no real power. He’s got a pen and a phone. Good on him.
Obama said he didn’t need Congress and that he had a pen and a phone. What context are you having a problem with?
Treasonous? It’s a good thing I didn’t ask you. 
It’s interesting that you say, “The president isn’t a ceremonial King with no real power”. Are you suggesting that the president is a ceremonial King with no real power or that the president is a King with real kingly powers?
This question perfectly encapsulates your simple-mindedness.
He is neither of those things. He is the President of a representative republic, with particular powers delegated to him by the Constitution. He has neither the ceremonial irrelevance of a modern monarch, nor the kingly powers of an absolute or even limited traditional monarch.
His powers are designed to both check and balance those of the Congress, and there are certain things that he can do himself, within the Executive Branch, without requiring the actions of Congress. Some of the things he can do are explicitly listed in the Constitution, and others have been determined over time, through governmental evolution and court decisions, to be within the purview of the President.
For better or worse, depending on your politics, the Presidency is a more powerful and independent position now than it was when the ink first dried on the Constitution. James Madison himself said, in Federalist 51, that in a republican government, “the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” While that is still true, to a considerable extent, the last two centuries have seen Presidents use more power than was ever envisioned by the original framers. Obama is hardly the first to exert executive authority in the face of Congressional inaction or opposition, and he won’t be the last. To be honest, in the pantheon of Presidential overreach, Obama’s pretty unexceptional, really.
This is something Americans, especially the right wing, tend to forget. These people want what they want, and avoiding ‘the tyranny of the masses’ is what our system is designed to do. Congress doesn’t get to have everything they want, and can be contained by the President or the Judiciary. The President can be ‘checked’ by Congress or the Judiciary. The Judiciary can be ‘checked’ by, for example, Congress instituting Constitutional changes, by impeachment, or by the President appointing more justices that will vote the ‘right’ way.
I perhaps misunderstood you. I keep hearing about how Obama is an emperor or pharaoh and he’s going to steal your guns and put you all in concentration black helicopter FEMA camps. It’s all supported by cherry picked bits and pieces of this and that, and it’s tiring to the extreme. If that wasn’t your intent, I apologize.
Yeah, I learned about checks and balances in grade school. The three branches of government are designed to prevent any one of them from grabbing too much power, but they all do have their powers, and deliberately obstructing and sabotaging just for its own sake is reprehensible.
Oh well. On with the thread.
Washington sent his info to Congress by letter at least a few years.
Could Obama go all Mars Attacks! and just death-ray congress?
It does seem unlikely that any Congresscritter would think this would do his side more good than harm.
Even Shodan agrees. Could any GOP Congressman be stupider than Shodan?
Late Tuesday, Rep. Paul C. Broun (R-Ga.) called for Boehner to not invite Obama to deliver the State of the Union address next year. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) suggested that the budgets for White House operations, including for Air Force One, should be decreased. Other conservatives have mentioned censuring the president, impeaching him or suing the administration over its immigration actions.
… On the State of the Union, [Huelskamp] added: “In the spirit of George Washington, he could send it to us in writing. It’d save some time.”
[/QUOTE]
Are any Republicans willing to comment on what their reaction would have been had a GOP President been shown this level of disrespect?
They wouldn’t like it, I’d imagine.
And, just as a note, Huelskamp gets it wrong. Washington delivered his State of the Union in person. It was Jefferson who started the tradition of delivering a written State of the Union, either because (my theory), he didn’t really like speaking in public, or (the more widely accepted theory), he thought it was “monarchical”.
You’ll have to be more specific. It was Obama who said that Obama didn’t need Congress and that he had a pen and a phone. Some could say that Obama was disrespectful of Congress with that comment. Others say that Congress deserved that disrespect. The political bickering continues. :rolleyes:
As it turned out, some member of Congress suggest that Obama shouldn’t be invited to speak before Congress. As far as I know, Obama has not requested to address the Congress. Do you know if Obama is going to ask Congress for their permission to address both houses of Congress? Does Obama even need a Congressional pulpit to make his State of the Union address? Obama does have his pen and his phone and a willingness to go it alone.