Obama Administration Overreach

[imatfaal]

That's the problem with politics...

You don't have to be great ( or even good ),

You just have to be better than the opposition.

 

So who would you rather have had as president ?

( although I do like J. McCain )

 

John McCain who has just said that he will block ANY nomination for the SCOTUS that Clinton might make - in what way does that make him fit to be part of government; let alone POTUS?

 

It is a shame there is not a version of impeachment for Congress - they are palpably failing the American people and deliberately making matters worse in order to throw democratic President into a bad light.

 

I reckon (in UK law only) you would have a fair chance of judicial review of his actions (if he did follow through on his threat) - he and his colleagues would be ultra vires; they have the right to vet and interogate candidates - they do not have the power to remove the responsibility of appointment from the POTUS which would be what they are doing. The immediate and preordained blocking of a proposal would seem to be unreasonable and not rational in the context of their responsibilities - ie no reasonable person acting in a reasonable manner would follow that course of action. Pretty sure this form of judicial oversight is even harder to get done in the USA - and it is unimaginably hard to get in the UK

[zapatos]

 

John McCain who has just said that he will block ANY nomination for the SCOTUS that Clinton might make - in what way does that make him fit to be part of government; let alone POTUS?

 

It is a shame there is not a version of impeachment for Congress - they are palpably failing the American people and deliberately making matters worse in order to throw democratic President into a bad light.

 

 

 

There is a version for Congress. Unless you meant Congress as a whole, to be impeached en masse.

 

 

 

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.

Impeachment can also occur at the state level: state legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors, in accordance with their respective state constitutions.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

So who would you rather have had as president ?

( although I do like J. McCain )

I like John McCain too. I was terribly disappointed to hear his comment about blocking any SCOTUS nomination put forth by Clinton. That seems out of character, and I expected more of him.

[swansont]

Not doing your job isn't a high crime or misdemeanor, AFAIK. If it was, they would all be impeachable for not passing a budget (one of the few other jobs they are mandated to do).

 

And it's not like they would impeach one of their own, anyway.

[imatfaal]

 

There is a version for Congress. Unless you meant Congress as a whole, to be impeached en masse.

 

Yep - I was fantasizing about putting the whole sorry lot up in the dock. Our legislature here in the UK is essentially a rubber stamp of the Executive - a famous jurist once styled UK government as an Elective Dictatorship; once the general election dust has settled and a party with a majority has taken office in government then parliamentary oversight is sorely lacking. The United States seems to have reached the other far extreme - in which a directly elected (remember uk prime minister is not directly elected) President is hamstrung for purely partisan party reasons (ie not policy based but party based).

[Willie71]

Would you like to cite examples?

I listed my four biggest concerns in a previous post. Do you need more examples?

[neutrinosalad]

 

John McCain who has just said that he will block ANY nomination for the SCOTUS that Clinton might make - in what way does that make him fit to be part of government; let alone POTUS?

 

McCain is literally going senile. It is becoming abundantly obvious at this point. He's still better than Ann Kirkpatrick (his opposition this year) though.

 

Yep - I was fantasizing about putting the whole sorry lot up in the dock. Our legislature here in the UK is essentially a rubber stamp of the Executive - a famous jurist once styled UK government as an Elective Dictatorship; once the general election dust has settled and a party with a majority has taken office in government then parliamentary oversight is sorely lacking. The United States seems to have reached the other far extreme - in which a directly elected (remember uk prime minister is not directly elected) President is hamstrung for purely partisan party reasons (ie not policy based but party based).

 

The problem with the United States is an increasing loss of internal cohesion. On our current path, the country is on the road to breaking up into smaller pieces unless some superhero president can swoop in and resolve the disarray that is occurring.

 

A lot of what is happening right now are different states, ethnic groups, and classes are forming factions and fighting each other rather than working on problem solving. At least that's what I see in the news all the time. It is not a partisan problem, it is an everyone problem.

[Ten oz]

 

McCain is literally going senile. It is becoming abundantly obvious at this point. He's still better than Ann Kirkpatrick (his opposition this year) though.

 

 

The problem with the United States is an increasing loss of internal cohesion. On our current path, the country is on the road to breaking up into smaller pieces unless some superhero president can swoop in and resolve the disarray that is occurring.

 

A lot of what is happening right now are different states, ethnic groups, and classes are forming factions and fighting each other rather than working on problem solving. At least that's what I see in the news all the time. It is not a partisan problem, it is an everyone problem.

On our current path we're on the road towards breaking up? Just within the last 60yrs we have seen whole groups of people legally supressed. Everything from denied voting rights to being forced to live is specific areas. We've seen women not be able to attend various schools, hold various jobs, legally abused by spouses and etc. We had a draft that forced a generation of our youth to war under the threat of prison. Today things are quantifiably more equitable. Never in the history of this country has a child born regardless of gender or race (label) been able to pursue any and all paths the way they can today.

 

In my opinion posting that by state and by ethnic group we are not working together and implying sometype of pending doom lacks historical perspective. Surely things were worse back when the president had to send the military to Little Rock to esccort black student to school? Worse when High School graduates were order to Vietnam. And these things aren't even the distance past. Our parants and grand parents lived through this stuff. When you say that today groups "form factions" rather than workinng together its hyperbole, in my opinion. Are there dissatified people, of course, but we are a more united country than we have ever been.

[Delta1212]

Except politically where partisanship and polarization actually are at high points in our recent history. Not all time highs, obviously. Things aren't as bad as they were immediately pre-Civil War, but they are still pretty bad even taking an historical perspective.

 

Otherwise, though, yeah. We have probably less factionalization based on other considerations like race than probably any point in our history. It's just that what conflict does exist gets reported on more and is less easy to ignore for people who would have historically been in a position to be able to ignore it.

 

There is also, I think, a tendency to smooth over the complications of the world in the recent past in part because you're less aware of things as a child. So when people fail to acknowledge that their memories of the world of their childhood and immediate recent past of that time are shaped more by their own lack of awareness than by an actual lack of complexity and conflict, you get nostalgia for a simpler time that never existed except for the blinders that people had an easier time putting on in the past.

 

Things are better today but the problems are harder to ignore so they seem worse.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Delta1212

[Ten oz]

Except politically where partisanship and polarization actually are at high points in our recent history. Not all time highs, obviously. Things aren't as bad as they were immediately pre-Civil War, but they are still pretty bad even taking an historical perspective.

 

Otherwise, though, yeah. We have probably less factionalization based on other considerations like race than probably any point in our history. It's just that what conflict does exist gets reported on more and is less easy to ignore for people who would have historically been in a position to be able to ignore it.

 

There is also, I think, a tendency to smooth over the complications of the world in the recent past in part because you're less aware of things as a child. So when people fail to acknowledge that their memories of the world of their childhood and immediate recent past of that time are shaped more by their own lack of awareness than by an actual lack of complexity and conflict, you get nostalgia for a simpler time that never existed except for the blinders that people had an easier time putting on in the past.

 

Things are better today but the problems are harder to ignore so they seem worse.

There is an argument to be made that "partisanship and polarization actually are at high points in our recent history". Congress is historically disfunctional. That is good support of your point. I am not sure that is what Capayan meant by "A lot of what is happening right now are different states, ethnic groups, and classes are forming factions" though. The references to states and enthic groups make their point less specifcally constrained than yours.

 

Yes, Congress is a partisan mess. However we have seen disfunction and gov't disorder take different and equally terrible forms in our post civil war history. Nixon was impeached and left the White House and was replaced by Ford (speaker of the house) who had never even been on a presidential ticket as VP. Just imagine to choas and disorder which would be required for use to end up with President Paul Ryan (Who isn't even running on a ticket currently) by the end of January.

 

If we look at George Wallace's presidential bid we see some very historic things that were directly related to division. Wallace won 5 states outright and 49 electoral votes. Something no third party candidate has done since. Wallace also force millions out of the democratic party and reshaped by our major parties which is the precipice our parties fell from to become the partisans they currently are. Very divisive figure and a very divide time.

 

Bill Clinton experienced 2 govt shutdowns led by the GOP controlled Congress over spending on Medicare. One lasted 5 days and the other 21 days. Obama has had many scares but only one shut down and it lasted 15 days. Bill Clinton was also impeached by the house in a hard party line vote.

 

We can debate the there have been more filibuster or that the House is more pointed in their attacks against Obama today than in previous eras but so too was the case during Bill Clinton's presidencies. In my opinion the manner of which partisanship is expressed has changed but I do not feel it is worse. We are very polarized but that is more of a continuation than a hard shift. Carter was so embattled Ted Kennedy ran against Carter (incumbent POTUS) for the party nomination in 1980. Many historic things have happened. Many unprecedented things. The style of attack and counter puncher is always changing.

[John Cuthber]

I listed my four biggest concerns in a previous post. Do you need more examples?

These four "There are legitimate concerns regarding the Obama administration. They include, NSA surveillance, deportations, benefiting from citizens united, and the drone program. "

 

Well, surveillance s nothing new not specific to Obama

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/george-bush-snooper-in-chief/

The issue of "deportations" seems to be an administrative details. Bush chucked more people out, but labelled them as removals, rather than deportations

https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants

 

I guess you are referring to this Citizens United event, (but let me know if I'm mistaken)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

where a group of Right wingers wanted to show a film- and they were allowed to

Obama is a politician: is he not expected to make the bast use he can of events?

Wouldn't any president have done the same.

Indeed, as far s I can tell, he would have been happier if the decision had gone the other way. Hardly a suggestion of undue influence

 

The drone program is a product of its time. It would have happened no matter who was president.

[swansont]

Ford was VP, not speaker. He was named VP after Spiro Agnew resigned, in accordance with the 25th amendment, and that's why he was never on the ticket. Not because the succession rules went past the VP level. He was house minority leader prior to that.

[Ten oz]

Ford was VP, not speaker. He was named VP after Spiro Agnew resigned, in accordance with the 25th amendment, and tgat's why he was never on the ticket. Not because the succession rules went past the VP level. He was house minority leader prior to that.

You are right. I did not clarify in my post. My point was more that he had never been on a ticket. We (USA) ended up with a POTUS months after a general election who hadn't even been on a ticket as President or VP.