Congress is a co-equal branch on foreign policy. Congress declares war, imposes sanctions, sets trade rules, and can have any foreign leader they want address Congress any time they want.
We can argue over whether that’s proper, and frankly I’d agree that it is not proper. However, you can’t condemn Congress’ actions and support the President’s questionable actions changing or refusing to enforce laws. If the President can push the envelope because he doesn’t like the policies Congress has decided on, then it is entirely fair for Congress to act when the President won’t as well.
There’s nothing unconstitutional, much less treasonous, about what Boehner’s doing. But there used to be a saying “Politics ends at the waters’ edge” meaning that parties and branches show a united front in foreign policy.
Having a foreign head of state address congress is a big deal. Circumventing protocol, bypassing the White House, when dealing with a head of state, is a big deal. Boehner has crossed a line, just to engage in a pissing contest.
Won’t happen. A plausible reason will be found, scheduling conflicts discovered, something like that. The sizzle has already been sold, no real reason to sell the steak as well.
Quick request, for you and other SDMB posters. Can you try not to quote adaher posts with my name in it and where he responds to me? I have him on ignore but when I spot my name in one of his quoted posts, its jarring because it brings the stupid back.
You all should put him on ignore too. The air smells sweeter, water tastes fresher, the sky is bluer. There is literally no downside to it! Thanks.
The GOP has shown no intelligence, no decorum, no honor, and no morality. And that’s by their standards when they accused Dems of all kinds of things during a GOP presidency. Its perfectly fine to hold them to their own standards and call them traitors, because they are, according to themselves. It would take another 40 years of Democratic iron-fisted control over Congress to change the culture and make people realize dissent is perfectly legitimate and American. But no need to give the frankly evil GOP any leeway in judging them
Oh yes, the video was classic Palin on steroids. The crowd started out being enthusiastic, but sort of lapsed into slack-jawed puzzlement and outright boredom because of same old. You know how a catch phrase is wildly funny the first 50 times you hear it, then eventually just becomes annoying? Well, I think Palin is way past her expiration date.
Yes, there’s video. You can’t hear the crowd reaction because the audio is from the mixing console, not ambient camera mics. Palin seems to be drunk or high. Her speech is a mishmash of non-sequitur right wing slogans and talking points, many of them a decade out of date. This was about as painful to watch as Phil Davison’s stump speech for the nomination to be Stark County (OH) Treasurer back in 2010.
It’s more than a pissing contest. The President is expanding the power of the executive branch to include the effective power to repeal or alter legislation he doesn’t like. Since Congress has no easy way to respond that would actually fix the problem, they are left to respond by doing tit for tat. Congress doesn’t agree with the President’s Israel policy. So Congress will act where the President refuses to. Turnabout is fair play.
This is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is “Republicans in Congress and Iran are endangering negotiations of a peaceful solution with Iran, and thus are endangering the future of Israel”. Sure, it’s legal for the Republicans to do it, but it’s very foolish IMO – so appropriate for this thread.
It’s not that simple. If the President can just refuse to enforce a law he doesn’t like, what good does it do Congress to pass another law?
The laws that the President has chosen to alter or ignore already exist. Re-passing them does not solve the problem, even if they do it with veto proof majorities. The only way to solve the problem is to punish the President for flouting the will of Congress and violating his oath of office. Impeachment is the extreme way to do that. An easier way is to simply undermine his initiatives the same way he undermines Congress’
“violating his oath of office”? No. “flouting the will of Congress” is something every President has done and can do. It’s enshrined in the Constitution, for god’s sake!
Congress failed to pass a law that appropriated enough funding to deport 11 million undocumented residents. It is not only entirely within the power of the President to prioritize the law when Congress passes unfunded mandates, it is his duty to do so as a responsible manager.
A President can veto laws. He cannot just alter a law because he doesn’t like it, or refuse to enforce it. The exception would be if that law violates the Constitution by infringing on executive branch powers that Congress has no say over.
Under no circumstances can a President just refuse to enforce a law passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress, and reaffirmed several times in subsequent legislation.
Congress did pass enough funding to deport more than just felons. Especially the very narrow definition of a felon that the administration has produced for its amnesty program, which would exclude offenses like drunk driving.
The pace of deportations has dropped. Not because the President doesn’t have the funds, but because he doesn’t want to deport non-felons.
Then there’s his Cuba policy, which is directly at odds with laws Congress has passed governing when we can establish relations with Cuba. As in, when they hold elections.
Thanks.