Of course not. And nothing Obama has done is remotely similar. The IRS does not expend effort to collect more than 15% of income as taxes, it merely audits the forms and investigates where needed. To think they could save money by only collecting 15% is silly.
I’d note that Obama’s rhetoric here is also unusual. the President has specifically said that he is justified to act because Congress won’t. There is no legal basis for his philosophy. Congress enacts the laws of this nation, the President carries them out. There is no “President may rule by decree in the face of Congressional inaction” clause in the Constitution. His very statements on this endorse lawlessness, which might give the impression that he is lawless, even if his actual executive orders do not cross that line. Presidents should never speak this way, and he is the first in our lifetimes.
Okay, I don’t believe this is the case. What evidence do you have that this is the case?
Saying you will not only not deport people who the law says are to be deported, but you’ll issue them what amounts to licenses to keep breaking the law, is a very similar concept.
A President can of course decide how best to spend IRS resources to enforce immigration law. We simply do not have enough resources to deport everyone. But we do have the resources to deport at the level we are currently deporting and the President is bound by the Constitution to continue to do so. The President said himself many times that he couldn’t legally do anything to slow down or stop deportations. Then Congress didn’t act as he desired, and he asserted that he could act because Congress didn’t. That is incorrect, to put it mildly.
Other examples are his waiving of portions of ACA despite no Congressional authorization to waive those parts. On that, a GOP President would be on firm ground to simply waive any portion of the law he chose, from the invididual mandate to the employer mandate to the insurance regulations.
Word.
IOW, you’ve got nothing. Thanks for playing. :dubious:
There is no “Congress can act like a bunch of recalcitrant five-year-olds being denied their afternoon cookie because they don’t like the color of the President’s skin” clause in Article I, either. The fact that the Republicans basically plotted – on Inauguration Day '09 – to do everything to hamstring the executive branch regardless of its effect on the American people stops short of high treason by a body hair. So any talk of “lawlessness” on the part of the President in this climate rings extremely hollow.
Not anything I can cite. I’ve been following politics for a while. And this was also the consensus understanding of political commentators both in the periods leading up to his actions, at the time they were being contemplated, and at the time.
I’m virtually certain that this is correct. But I’m not asking you to accept this, and I’m not similarly asking you for a “cite” or for “evidence” for your comparable contrary assertion. We’re going to have to leave it at that.
Eh, “treason” gets used too easily in these circumstances. Being a petulant asshole is not the same thing as being a traitor.
Okay. I’m virtually certain that this is not correct, and that this was not the “consensus understanding of political commentators” at any point. If you want to leave it at that, that’s okay with me.
I’d take the 70% majorities. This would be 70 Senators, and 305 members of the House.
Two-thirds would be 67 and 290.
If the GOP controlled Congress that overwhelmingly, yet we had a Dem President, the GOP would pass its program (Ryan budget, voucherizing Medicare, repealing Obamacare, abortion restrictions, etc.) by veto-proof majorities. Based on current/recent behavior, it’s safe to say they wouldn’t get 4 defections in the Senate or 16 in the House.
That would be a disaster for the country.
If the Dems have the 70% majorities, then the worst case is that little harm gets done. They would pass whatever sort of budgets that could get 2/3 majorities in both houses, and probably not a whole lot else would get done.
It wouldn’t be ideal, but it wouldn’t be much different from now.
I agree - I’m just pointing out that a parade of CT clones will just get rejected by the Senate until President Whackadoodle finally nominates a moderate.
In the meantime, SCOTUS can continue on with fewer than 9 justices. And if the justices that died were, say, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts in a fiery car crash after a night at the bar, a 70% Dem Senate might be fine leaving SCOTUS at only 4 justices, with the Notorious RBG acting as Chief. That would be a court that would make the Warren court look positively reactionary.
I’m part of the minority that took the Presidential option.
In part, that’s because an analysis of the stock market shows that, overall, the markets have done better under a Republican President and a Democratic Congress. Now, this is hardly predictive or scientific - it might say more about voters than about politics or markets - but it is an interesting observation nonetheless.
So… I favor Republicans, which means taking the Presidential poll option.
I actually have some other reservations about letting Republicans have a majority. The Tea Party is just a disaster all the way around and I don’t understand why mainstream Republicans put up with their nonsense. As long as that’s the way it works, letting the Democrats have Congress will marginalize the Tea Party and I’ll sleep better that way.
I don’t think much of basing voting decisions on the stock market, but FWIW the stats show the opposite - the stock market has done better under a Democratic president than under a Republican one.
Democratic President/Republican Congress. the current surge only reinforces that.
So let’s let the Dems keep the Presidency and see if we can’t get to 70%!
Surge of what? Inquiring minds want to know!
I chose congress because a massive super majority in both houses means that my party’s platform has achieved super-majority support among the American people. Which means if the president is of a different party he either
(a) is very much a moderate of that party and who was able to be elected by co-opting my parties agenda.
or
(b) was an anomaly of his time that will be corrected in 4 years time, during which any radical positions he purposes will be met with public ridicule and easily shot down.
Stock market.
Which you doubtlessly attribute to John Boehner.
I attribute it in part to the 2010 elections and the confidence that gave the business community. For a couple of years there they had no idea what further burdens were going to be placed on them. 2010 gave them certainty that no more would be done to them.
I’m surprised how overwhelming the preference was in favor of the 70% majority.
I wonder, if it were scaled down to 65% or 67% instead, if there’d be a big shift in preference?
I’ll go so far as to say I’d rather have 51% majorities in Congress than the Presidency, if I had to choose.
I’d also prefer control over state governments to control over the federal government. As things stand today, the Democratic President does have a lot of power and ability to irritate Republicans, but the ability to make great changes is one that only the GOP has, and will have as long as they control Congress and the majority of state governments. And when you control state governments, the federal government’s ability to get things done is also limited, even if the Democrats did control Congress.
Plus governors like Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, and Rick Scott have been able to make major reforms that Barack Obama can’t veto. Even if Republicans had total control of the federal government but Democrats still controlled those state governments, those changes would not have been possible absent constitutional amendments changing our federalist system.