# Should Obama have been able to get Congress to work with him? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064 "2016-01-13T20:11:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/141 "2016-01-15T07:29:15Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Or we could just be decent to each other and engage in an honest debate. Your call I guess. > > Thanks for being considerate … > > So what exactly is the excluded middle that I missed? What other option was there for the country at that time? Are you saying that us just defaulting on our debts and refusing to pay at all was an option? What is the 3rd option that was on the table back then, and please be specific. You’re making an accusation of me, I’d appreciate if you could substantiate it. > > So causing harm to the country to try to get your way in the future is governing in your mind? I’d almost call it treason or terrorism personally. I guess you expect very little from your representatives if ‘letting it burn’ is an acceptable result for you for the country. > > If someone prevented you from paying your credit card bill, which resulted in you having a poor credit rating, would you consider yourself as having been harmed? What if this person is just trying to prove a point, and considers their point to be a positive result. Were you then not harmed? > > And what of the congressional duties outlined in the constitution? Just ignore that stuff? Not necessary as long as your personal political goals are being pursued? Pretty sad idea of what government is supposed to be, that. It’s straight hysteria and intellectual dishonesty to label a difference in spending treason or terrorism. Those words are as overplayed as “racist.” The U.S. Government could, borrow and spend less. Or sell assets. Those are options. In my point of view, having millions of Americans out of work because they can’t compete with Asian labor or illegal labor due to law and failure to enforce law could be labeled treasonous or traitorous by your standards. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/142 "2016-01-15T07:30:16Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Isn’t the life of the hostage worth more than the helicopter and $10,000 in unmarked bills you’d have to give the guy? Aren’t the police the real hostage-takers for putting me in this position? > > No, I’m sorry, this is ridiculous. It was not the democrats who said, “Do what we want or we refuse to do basic government maintenance”. It was not the democrats who drastically overstepped their bounds. They demanded a clean debt ceiling bill. That’s not unreasonable. You know what _is_ unreasonable? Expecting major policy concessions simply to get the republicans to take their finger off the red button (at least for now - it’s not like they ever did that again, [except that time they totally did](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis_of_2013)). > > The debt ceiling debacle was entirely the GOP’s fault. You don’t get the blame the democrats for refusing to concede their entire policy to stop the other side from blowing up the country. You blame the other side for posing such completely unreasonable threats. Why even have a farce of a law like a debt ceiling? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/143 "2016-01-15T07:52:06Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Let’s say ISIL invaded the United States, a la “Red Dawn.” And the President did nothing - no orders to the military to defend Americans, no orders to the National Guard, nothing. Just kind of stuck his thumb up his butt and made some speeches. > > Suggesting that the Constitution ought to be changed because both action and inaction are both allowable options under the commander in chief clause is absurd. Criticizing the President for inaction, however, is perfectly acceptable. One could even say that he is shirking his constitutional responsibilities, which is similar to what **Airbeck** is saying, and I don’t think that’s an outrageous suggestion, despite there being no clause of the Constitution which specifically obligates the President to defend the American people (apart from his oath to defend the Constitution, which I’m sure the pedants in this thread can all agree is not the same thing at all). You mean the president has a duty to expel those who enter the country illegally? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/144 "2016-01-15T08:05:13Z")
That’s why Congress has the power to declare war. Then the President would be obligated to defend the country or else he’s in violation of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/145 "2016-01-15T08:19:52Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Why even have a farce of a law like a debt ceiling? A very good question. Rep Peter Welch proposed getting rid of it, but that apparently went nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/146 "2016-01-15T12:13:32Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > With respect, I think you underestimate the importance and the policy decisions those officials make… The Dems did it to Bush… > > Suppose you are a Congressman and President Cruz appoints Judge Smith to the Northern District of West Dakota. You don’t know Judge Smith…you want to stop his nomination, right? 🙂 No, I don’t underestimate the power they have, but you wrongly assume that I support inaction on nominees. The Constitution includes a provision to give the President the ability to fill vacancies when the Senate is incapable of acting, though it is now essentially a useless power, so even our Framers thought that it was a matter of importance to have government staffed. But if you are against someone being appointed to a position, vote against them. In extraordinary circumstances, I have no problem with a filibuster. I recognize that Congress is busy and can’t dispose of everything before it, but a deliberate pattern and strategy of inaction on scores to hundreds of nominations is inexcusable, especially when the reasons for the dereliction typically have nothing to do with the nominee themselves. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/147 "2016-01-15T18:49:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Petitio principii, fallacy of. Doesn’t apply in this case ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/148 "2016-01-15T20:34:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The President’s problem, as Mitch McConnell pointed out, is that he likes to tell people what they think, what they support, and what they want. That’s not negotiation, and the President has never been particularly interested in negotiation. He presents a deal, says how generous it is and how much of a compromise it is, and then it’s take it or leave it. > > I almost hope Clinton gets elected just because it would demonstrate how bad a President Obama was. Clinton will probably work very productively with Republicans. That should convince all but the most ardent Obama fans. First of all, Obama is not a bad president. He’s not outstanding, but he’s middle of the pack at worst. Just because you don’t like him doesn’t make him bad at his job. Tangentially related to Obama, and the failure of the GOP to actually try to work with him, I’m reminded of what Richard Mourdock (R-IN. Was a senator at the time) [said](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/05/09/480770/richard-mourdoch-hates-bipartisanship/): > [@Richard Mourdock](#): > > bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view…If we win the House, Senate, and White House…bipartisanship means they have to come our way. In the same interview he said, “To me, the highlight of politics, frankly, is to inflict my opinion on someone else.” Another example of the Right’s ongoing desire to deny Obama anything was when Senate Majority Leader, and cartoon character most likely to beat Bugs Bunny in a race, Mitch McConnell was forced to [filibuster](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-filibusters-his-own-bill-to-lift-debt-ceiling) his own bill. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/149 "2016-01-15T23:10:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Clinton will probably work very productively with Republicans. That should convince all but the most ardent Obama fans. Really? If anything, it would prove to a lot of people that the Republicans’ ardent opposition to Obama was mostly due to race. It certainly would me, not that I need more evidence of it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/150 "2016-01-16T00:44:49Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > . . . Suppose you are a Congressman and President Cruz appoints Judge Smith to the Northern District of West Dakota. You don’t know Judge Smith…you want to stop his nomination, right? 🙂 Without knowing anything about him? That would be highly irresponsible. Research the bloke, and then make up your mind. Simply refusing to vote for “anybody he nominated” is extremely bad legislative behavior. That’s obstruction without a valid purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/151 "2016-01-16T01:00:57Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You mean the president has a duty to expel those who enter the country illegally? Only if the President is really confused about what an invasion is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/152 "2016-01-16T05:26:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I assume you’re citing Jacobson v Massachusetts. > > It’s true that Justice Harlan said the preamble did not confer any specific powers to the government. But Jacobson also asserted his right to refuse vaccination under the Fourteenth Amendment and I’m assuming you recognize that section as giving the government some specific powers. > > But Justice Harlan seemed to go out of his way to undermine his own argument. He repeatedly cited the “common good” as justification for ruling against Jacobson. > > And where in the Constitution did Justice Harlan find any mention of common good as a justification for government action? It’s certainly not mentioned or implied in Article I (or Article III for that matter). The only place where you can find the common good as an implied justification for government action is in the Preamble (and even there the phrase doesn’t actually appear in those words). Just stop. Of course “common good” appears in the constitution: > [@](#): > > Article VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it. Of course, that’s the Massachusetts State Constitution. The case involved a claim that a law passed by Massachusetts infringed upon rights guaranteed by the federal constitution. Justice Harlan undoubtedly remembered that the states have plenary police power, which they can certainly use for the common good or indeed any reason they wish. The power of Massachusetts to pass a law for the common good is of course not found in the federal constitution! It derives from the plenary legislative sovereign power of each state, and is memorialized in Art VII of the state constitution. The federal constitution is of course supreme where it might conflict with state law, so the Supreme Court had to answer the question, “Does this exercise of Massachusetts law conflict with the federal constitution – specifically, with the preamble, and with the Fourteenth Amendment?” As to the preamble: no, because the preamble is not a source of substantive rights or powers. As to the Fourteenth Amendment: also no. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/153 "2016-01-16T05:53:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Only if the President is really confused about what an invasion is. So ignoring politically inconvenient law is governing and proper execution of duties? I can’t blame Congress for acting in their best interests when that’s the name of the game. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/154 "2016-01-17T01:15:11Z")
[From on op-ed in a well-known paper today](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/opinion/giving-obama-his-due.html?src=me&_r=0): > [@](#): > > Could Obama, with that first-class intellect to go with a first-class temperament, with that pitch-perfect sense of humor, have been a better schmoozer and deal maker? Certainly. He was never very good at hiding his condescension for Republican leaders. But that party was united in a single goal — to defeat him at every turn. > > Republicans who would not applaud the creation of 14 million jobs, an unemployment rate cut in half, 17 million people given health care, a global climate change pact, the strongest military in the world and a rousing call for a “moonshot” to cure cancer are incapable of taking a fair measure of Obama’s achievements. > > This Congress is done with him. That was as clear as the blank prairie stare on the face of House Speaker Paul Ryan. What was a dysfunctional, bickering relationship is now a divorce. Call in the lawyers. Obama could propose Grandmother Appreciation Day and not get a single vote from Republicans because, well, he proposed it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/155 "2016-01-17T04:04:01Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > So ignoring politically inconvenient law is governing and proper execution of duties? I can’t blame Congress for acting in their best interests when that’s the name of the game. Good thing that hundreds of thosands of people have been removed from the US in the last year - Obama is on the job! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/156 "2016-01-17T04:59:14Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > [From on op-ed in a well-known paper today](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/opinion/giving-obama-his-due.html?src=me&_r=0): Except under Ryan, they made a budget deal that gave Democrats most of what they wanted, and are still willing to push TPP through for the President. Sure, the REpublicans are confrontational and there is an element in the party that doesn’t want to give Obama anything. But there have always been enough votes to pass good legislation along with the Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/157 "2016-01-18T06:20:26Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > So ignoring politically inconvenient law is governing and proper execution of duties? I can’t blame Congress for acting in their best interests when that’s the name of the game. People entering the country illegally is generally a crime not an invasion. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/158 "2016-01-18T06:29:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As to the Fourteenth Amendment: also no. Could you expand on this point because it seems like the key point and I’m not seeing how Justice Harlan reached this decision. My understanding is that Jacobson’s argument was that he was entitled to due process. Justice Harlan’s decision was based on the argument that the common good trumped due process. My assumption was that Justice Harlan was finding the common good in the federal constitution, but you say that isn’t so. So my question now is how can common good, as established in a state constitution, trump due process, as established in the federal constitution? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/159 "2016-01-18T06:29:34Z")
You’re not allowed to say that either. It’s an “act of love” now. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/160 "2016-01-18T16:11:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Could you expand on this point because it seems like the key point and I’m not seeing how Justice Harlan reached this decision. Sure, although I want to be clear that we’ve now moved afield; the initial issue was the applicability of the federal preamble language to any substantive legal right or remedy. As Jacobson made clear, there ain’t none such, and this conclusion remains untrammeled by subsequent law. Also unchanged was the conclusion – not unique to Jacobson but echoing a wide line of prior cases – that states had plenary police power: that is, a state can legislate on any matter within its borders, subject only to areas where the federal constitution places some limit. But what has changed dramatically in the last 110 years since Jacobson was written is the width, depth, and breadth of the Fourteenth Amendment. So it’s not surprising that you read Harlan’s dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment as having applicability and wonder just what he’s talking about. But you have the perspective of 115 years in which the text of the Fourteenth hasn’t changed by so much as one comma, but the effect of the amendment has undergone a veritable metamorphosis. In fact, this case isn’t even close to the nadir of Fourteenth Amendment strength. Consider Black v. Bell, the 1927 Supreme Court case that upheld compulsory sterilization of genetic undesirables (“Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”) The state’s broad plenary power allowed it to enact sterilization and the Fourteenth Amendment did nothing to shield the targets of this. Interestingly enough, while the Fourteenth Amendment was not given much power of issues of personal liberty, it was the source of _striking_ commercial liberty – the so-called “Lochner era” rested on a 1910 case in which New York’s state plenary power to require bakers’ employers to not require long working hours was struck down due to a supposed “right to contract,” found in the Fourteenth Amendment. > [@](#): > > My understanding is that Jacobson’s argument was that he was entitled to due process. Justice Harlan’s decision was based on the argument that the common good trumped due process. My assumption was that Justice Harlan was finding the common good in the federal constitution, but you say that isn’t so. So my question now is how can common good, as established in a state constitution, trump due process, as established in the federal constitution? It’s because your understanding of “due process,” includes both procedural and substantive due process. The latter began its life in Lochner, although it was not named until later; the idea that there was a substantive element to the due process clause can be fairly said to have begun when the Lochner court said that the federal constitution, by its spirit of freedoms, protected the rights of two parties to contract working hours among themselves, free from New York’s legislative reach. This view, and these laws, survived until the Depression, when they ran into serious conflict with the various social programs that FDR’s government had put in place to combat the economic disaster. Courts, including the Supreme Court, abandoned the economic liberty ideas of the Lochner era and accepted a wide variety of regulations purportedly designed for healing the nation’s woes. United States v. Carolene Products Company is a good example of the shift. This 1938 case challenged a federal law that prohibited “filled milk,” which was skim milk augmented by non-milk fats, from being sold in interstate commerce. The challenge claimed that this restriction was an unconstitutional restriction of the economic due process rights of the business. The Supreme Court upheld the law, declaring that the legislature’s determination was entitled to presumptive constitutionality, as long as there was some evidence on which the legislature could have reasonably relied…in this case, the public health concerns of “filled milk.” In a footnote, the Court said that not all government legislation would be entitled to that deference – legislation that targeted politically powerless minorities would need more, stronger justification. This has become known as the most influential footnote in Court history, as it gave birth to what we now know as the various levels of judicial review: strict scrutiny for protected classes and rational basis review for classifications like the merely economic. Subsequent court cases crafted many personal liberty interests as “fundamental,” and they have grown over the years to include the panoply you know today. You know the cases that have shaped the law: Griswold in 1968, which defined contraception as such a right; Loving, for marriage; Roe v. Wade needs no explanation; Lawrence v. Texas, which placed sexual acts between consenting adults out of reach; and others where the court case is not familiar but the effects are well know. So the short summary is: the Due Process Clause jurisprudence in 1905, for Jacobson, was correctly applied by Justice Harlan. It just seems odd to today’s eyes because the Due Process clause case law in the intervening 110 years dramatically transformed the landscape. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064.md?page=9)