Through much of the previous administration President Obama has taken liberties with his powers, like for example going to war in Libya, refusing to deport illegal aliens and many other actions. Liberals took to humming and plugging their ears rather than acknowledge complaints about executive overreach. Republicans are also guilty concerning certain actions of George Bush. In fact id wager the same sort of thing is true of most presidents in history. It is of course much easier for the president to act with his phone and his pen than for congress or the courts to stop him from acting.
You see regardless of who is president no president is willing to limit their own power since a previous president already set a “precedent.” Each party lives under the delusion that the other side will never return to power and so forgive their own sides power grabs, after all they agree with what their president is doing in this specific situation, whatever that situation may be. Concerning themselves with the principles behind the action are boring and hard to sell.
As a Republican, who didn’t vote for Trump, I call on all republicans to hold Trump to doing things the right way and not to bypass the system and ask the rest of you to do the same when your guy gets elected.
The OP identified the central problem. Neither side is interested in limiting itself when it’s in power. Both sides are only interested in limits when they lack the power to set them.
I think we’re about to hit a bad stretch of expansion of government power. We’re going to have a Republican President (who doesn’t seem interested in self-limitation) backed by a Republican Congress and what will soon be a Republican Supreme Court.
There are facts and there are facts. The fact is President Obama signed an executive order to keep millions of illegal immigrants from deportation and to issue them the right to work. The courts have decided that he exceeded his abilities with this order. I have a feeling you knew that yet tried to obfuscate the reality of what I was trying to say. Or are you unaware of this case?
In any case the particularities of the executive overreach is unimportant. The fact is we need to oppose executive, or for that matter legislative and judicial, overreach regardless of whether we like the reason for the overreach or not.
A reading of the constitution does not seem to say much about limiting executive power. The president can do what he pleases, and if the Congress does not obstruct him, it’s a done deal.
“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The rebellion against Trump has already started, and the constitution is mute on how it is to be established that “public safety may require” extreme measures.
Dude you don’t seem to understand that I don’t care about the president’s record on deportations and more to the fact that they are unimportant to the topic under discussion in this thread. I was using an example of a clear case where he overstepped his authority as determined by the courts.
The point is there are dozens of such overreaches which happen under the term of nearly every president, regardless of party. The fact that you agree with the executive order makes it that much harder for you to fight against it but fight against it you should.
Each new president takes a look at the actions of their predecessors and uses that as a guide for what mischief they can get away with. They will then defend to their last day in office all the powers they seem to have because others have used them in the past.
Each time someone disagrees with some action that President Trump takes, his response will be that Obama did it and you were ok when he did it.
The point of an executive is to execute the laws passed by congress, so long as they are constitutional. An executive order is supposed to be a tool in which the President informs the bureaucracy of the specifics of how they are to inforce the laws passed by congress. An executive order cannot be used to have the government act when congress is silent nor change a law as passed.
Yes. But drewder was unclear. He said, “Through much of the previous administration President Obama has taken liberties with his powers, like for example going to war in Libya, refusing to deport illegal aliens…”
That’s not an accurate statement, and running coach correctly took issue with it.
What I think drewder meant was that Obama refused to deport certain classes of illegal aliens. Specifically, Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program laid out a set of criteria by which certain illegal immigrants would be designated for “deferred action,” and not be deported, even though they were deportable under the law.
So hopefully that clears it up. I imagine running coach agrees that Obama did in fact order a program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, and it did in fact result in individuals who were deportable under the law having their deportation deferred.
We should add that the US’s war on Libya lasted for like ten days. The OP has put his finger on a very reasonable issue and chose very middling to bad examples to try to back up his point. My theory is that he just wanted to point fingers at Obama more than anything.
The overall point is a good one, though: MY President needs sweeping powers to enact his wise policies and YOUR President’s powers need to be strictly curtailed to limit the effect of his unwise policies.
Not at all. Let look at the war on Libya. One could say that the war on Grenada was another such example and perhaps gave the president the precedent he needed to do so in Libya. Or the Iran contra deal was precedent for delivering $1.3 billion to Iran in order to secure the release of hostages. I wasn’t sure if I should include examples at all because I knew this sort of thing would happen but I thought I would be asked for examples and my failure to provide them would be evidence I was talking out of my ass and just wanting to attack the president.
Persons picked up by ICE are often, perhaps quite normally, permitted to voluntarily self deport in lieu of going through a deportation hearing. When the nice ICE officer says all you have to do to be set free is sign this paper agreeing to self-deportation many people do it, even if they might have been eligible for a hearing and would have been freed in the United States pending that hearing. And if you sign, you are set free once you leave the country. And that is just for internal apprehensions.
Those picked up at the border can be returned with no hearing as well. Historically this was the norm though more have been processed through formal removal proceedings. Oddly this “increased” level of formal enforcement via hearings has allowed many such detained persons to be free in the United States pending a hearing… a hearing that will only happen if the person facing removal proceedings actually shows up - most don’t.
By that definition, then you could also say that American Citizens, accused of a crime, are not entitled to a trial, because many of them sign plea deals.
Critics noted this far exceeded the 90 day limit set in the War Powers Act beyond which Congress must be asked for authorization for military involvement or a declaration of war. However the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act is unclear.
So… who should a President Trump be allowed to bomb for 7 months without any input from Congress or a declaration of war? That is the rub. The point of this thread. Executive overreach may have quite troubling results once the other guy is in office.
Executive power is like a pile of rocks. Each new President climbs to the top of the pile that his predecessors built up and then tries to add some more rocks.
Every administration criticizes the concept of an “Imperial Presidency” till they get into office.
The constitution was designed with checks and balances which leads itself to gridlock.
What people fail to understand is our party system is not nearly as cut and dry as we’d like to believe
You’ll find two Democratic Senators have a lot in common with the Republican Senators in neighboring states, than in other East Coast Democratic Senators.