Will BHO Disgrace Himself?

[Jack Hays]

This is a discussion of BHO's power grab that uses the term caudillismo. That should tell you all you need to know.

Will Obama Disgrace Himself? - Ross Douthat, New York Times

". . . So there is no public will at work here. There is only the will to power of this White House.


Which is why the thinking liberal’s move, if this action goes forward, will be to invoke structural forces, flaws inherent in our constitutional order, to justify Obama’s unilateralism. This won’t be a completely fallacious argument: Presidential systems like ours have a long record, especially in Latin America, of producing standoffs between executive and legislative branches, which tends to make executive power grabs more likely. In the United States this tendency has been less dangerous — our imperial presidency has grown on us gradually; the worst overreaches have often been rolled back. But we do seem to be in an era whose various forces — our open-ended post-9/11 wars, the ideological uniformity of the parties — are making a kind of creeping caudillismo more likely.


But if that evil must come, woe to the president who chooses it. And make no mistake, the president is free to choose. No immediate crisis forces his hand; no doom awaits the country if he waits. He once campaigned on constitutionalism and executive restraint; he once abjured exactly this power. There is still time for him to respect the limits of his office, the lines of authority established by the Constitution, the outcome of the last election.


Or he can choose the power grab, and the accompanying disgrace."

 

[Excon]

Will BHO Disgrace Himself?

Shouldn't that read;

Will BHO Disgrace Himself Again?​

 

[Linc]

BHO has already disgraced himself according to GOP conservative hacks.

Why run a hack trolling thread, in the exact words my fellow poster TurtleDude uses in gun threads,
when the GOP conservative OP already knows all the answers .

 

[Jack Hays]

BHO has already disgraced himself according to GOP conservative hacks.

Why run a hack trolling thread, in the exact words my fellow poster TurtleDude uses in gun threads,
when the GOP conservative OP already knows all the answers .

Because when a New York Times columnist poses the question that is interesting all by itself, "GOP conservative hacks" being rare at the NYT.

 

[Linc]

False-equivalence as always from you.
Since when is any NYT article gospel to a GOP conservative as you?

Are you seriously saying the NYT does not have writers who criticize the President?
No matter how many times you're proven wrong, your obtuseness will know no end .

Because when a New York Times columnist poses the question that is interesting all by itself, "GOP conservative hacks" being rare at the NYT.

 

[Jack Hays]

False-equivalence as always from you.
Since when is any NYT article gospel to a GOP conservative as you?

Are you seriously saying the NYT does not have writers who criticize the President?
No matter how many times you're proven wrong, your obtuseness will know no end .

Since I'm neither a conservative nor a member of the GOP you're starting poorly. The NYT is certainly not gospel to me, but in a political discussion forum a NYT column asking whether BHO will disgrace himself seems worth discussing. If you disagree then you are free not to participate. And yes, NYT columnists have criticized BHO, but that has usually been for not being left enough. This time he's being criticized for going too far right. The word caudillismo, harking back to Francisco Franco, really can't be read any other way.

 

[matchlight]

BHO has already disgraced himself according to GOP conservative hacks.

Why run a hack trolling thread, in the exact words my fellow poster TurtleDude uses in gun threads,
when the GOP conservative OP already knows all the answers .

And according to leftists who share Mr. Obama's taste for illegitimate, antidemocratic government, engaging in it is no disgrace. It was to protect against just the kind of abuse of power and contempt for the Constitution Mr. Obama has been guilty of that the Framers of the Constitution included the impeachment procedure in it.

 

[Joe Steel]

From the linked article:

... The election just past was not, of course, a formal referendum on the president’s proposed amnesty, but it was conducted with the promise of unilateral action in the background, and with immigration as one of the more hotly debated issues. The result was a devastating defeat for Obama and his party, and most polling on unilateral action is pretty terrible for the president.

The election was not a repudiation of Democratic policies. It was the triumph of Republican politics, the politics of distortion, distraction and deceit. By first admitting amnesty was not at issue and then attempting to say it was, the author is showing himself to be little more than a Republican tool.

 

[Jack Hays]

From the linked article:

The election was not a repudiation of Democratic policies. It was the triumph of Republican politics, the politics of distortion, distraction and deceit. By first admitting amnesty was not at issue and then attempting to say it was, the author is showing himself to be little more than a Republican tool.

The only distortion is your torturing of the author's words.

 

[MMC]

Mornin' JH. :2wave: The Liberal Law Professor, thinks so!


Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley: Obama's Executive Amnesty Threat 'Tears at Very Fabric of The Constitution".....

"What I'm hearing certainly causes great concern that he will again violate the separation of powers," Turley said. "No president can take on the power of all three branches and that's what he seems to be doing. He certainly seems to be taking on legislative authority. He isn't be particularly coy about this, you know he says 'this is what I wanted to get out of legislation and I'm going to do it on my own' and that does become a government of one."

"It's a very sad moment but it's becoming a particularly dangerous moment if the president is going to go forward, particularly after this election to defy the will of Congress yet again. I can understand the frustration, these are two political parties that cannot get along but as you said, we have a Democratic process and a Congress that's coming in with the full voice of the American people behind them, that's what an election is, you may disagree with the outcome, but you have to respect the outcome," Turley continued. "What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance and that doesn't protect the branches. It's not there to protect the executive branch or the legislative branch, it's there to protect liberty. It's there to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty." .....snip~

Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley: Obama's Executive Amnesty Threat 'Tears at Very Fabric of The Constitution" - Katie Pavlich

 

[Ockham]

Mornin' JH. :2wave: The Liberal Law Professor, thinks so!


Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley: Obama's Executive Amnesty Threat 'Tears at Very Fabric of The Constitution".....

"What I'm hearing certainly causes great concern that he will again violate the separation of powers," Turley said. "No president can take on the power of all three branches and that's what he seems to be doing. He certainly seems to be taking on legislative authority. He isn't be particularly coy about this, you know he says 'this is what I wanted to get out of legislation and I'm going to do it on my own' and that does become a government of one."

"It's a very sad moment but it's becoming a particularly dangerous moment if the president is going to go forward, particularly after this election to defy the will of Congress yet again. I can understand the frustration, these are two political parties that cannot get along but as you said, we have a Democratic process and a Congress that's coming in with the full voice of the American people behind them, that's what an election is, you may disagree with the outcome, but you have to respect the outcome," Turley continued. "What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance and that doesn't protect the branches. It's not there to protect the executive branch or the legislative branch, it's there to protect liberty. It's there to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty." .....snip~

Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley: Obama's Executive Amnesty Threat 'Tears at Very Fabric of The Constitution" - Katie Pavlich

Obama knows it will tear up the Constitution - he's possibly betting on it. Far left Progressives cannot move forward with the Constitution we have and the limits of executive or legislative power we currently have in place. So make the constitution irrelevant by ignoring it or bypassing it. Once precedent is set, the Constitution ceases to be law and now becomes a guideline that can be ignored or bypassed going forward. It is the first step in remaking America in the Progressive image - centralized authoritarian government run by Progressives who are cattle herders - and American's are the cattle.

Tin foil sounding isn't it? Yeah I agree - and no I don't take that view too seriously - it's certainly not a probable outcome given so many different variables and the SCOTUS still having some semblance of character to follow the law. In order for that to actually occur, the SCOTUS would have to be stacked with looney tune buffoons the caliber of Grayson (D-FLA), and certainly not a House and Senate majority of GOP members. I think it's an ill advised move but .... Obama is a conundrum. He seems intelligent as hell but makes so many blundering moves. One has to think he's getting very bad advice from his Cabinet.

 

[BMCM]

So far the only Presidents that have issued very broad amnesty were republican Presidents.

 

[whysoserious]

I think his legacy, at this point, seems pretty safe. He's been on the right side of a lot of issues, and really had to fight through an almost unprecedented amount of obstructionism. Immigration has historically been an issue that politicians love to talk about, but then never follow through on, so it would be surprising to see him actually take action on it.

But I don't think him "disgracing" himself is much of a concern. Historically speaking, he's set himself up nicely.

 

[MMC]

Obama knows it will tear up the Constitution - he's possibly betting on it. Far left Progressives cannot move forward with the Constitution we have and the limits of executive or legislative power we currently have in place. So make the constitution irrelevant by ignoring it or bypassing it. Once precedent is set, the Constitution ceases to be law and now becomes a guideline that can be ignored or bypassed going forward. It is the first step in remaking America in the Progressive image - centralized authoritarian government run by Progressives who are cattle herders - and American's are the cattle.

Tin foil sounding isn't it? Yeah I agree - and no I don't take that view too seriously - it's certainly not a probable outcome given so many different variables and the SCOTUS still having some semblance of character to follow the law. In order for that to actually occur, the SCOTUS would have to be stacked with looney tune buffoons the caliber of Grayson (D-FLA), and certainly not a House and Senate majority of GOP members. I think it's an ill advised move but .... Obama is a conundrum. He seems intelligent as hell but makes so many blundering moves. One has to think he's getting very bad advice from his Cabinet.

Mornin' Ockham. :2wave: BO's EO on this matter can be walked backed after January.....which all the Repubs need do is legislate with those Demos that are about the Constitution and write Law over BO peeps EO. Watering it down to nothing.

What the Repubs should do is keep playing BO's own words wherein what he stated his position was before. Keep playing that out with the MS media and their Talk Shows. Then on Radio.

This will be held against the Demos going into 2016.

 

[sangha]

And according to leftists who share Mr. Obama's taste for illegitimate, antidemocratic government, engaging in it is no disgrace. It was to protect against just the kind of abuse of power and contempt for the Constitution Mr. Obama has been guilty of that the Framers of the Constitution included the impeachment procedure in it.

What is illegitimate, undemocratic or unconstitutional about Obama using the power to defer deportations - a power Congress has delegated to the President?

http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=754

General authority for defered action exists under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 103(a), 8 U.S.C. § 103(a), which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to enforce the immigration laws. Though no statutes oregulations delineate defered action in specific terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that decisions to initate or terminate enforcement procedings fall squarely within the authority of the Executive. In the immigration context, the Executive Branch has exercised its general enforcement authority to grant defered action since at least 1971. Federal courts have acknowledged the existence of this executive power at least as far back as the mid–1970s.5

Parole–in–place refers to a form of parole granted by the Executive Branch under
the authority of INA § 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 182(d)(5). Under this provision, the Atorney
General “may . . in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such
conditons as he may prescribe only on a case–by–case basis for urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefit any alien aplying for admision to the United
States.”7 Parole permits a noncitzen to remain lawfuly in the United States, although
parole does not constiute an “admision” under the INA. Individuals who have ben
paroled are eligible for work authorization

Defered enforced departure, often refered to as DED, is a form of prosecutorial
discretion that is closely related to defered action. Almost every Administration since
President Dwight D. Eisenhower has granted DED or the analogous “Extended Voluntary
Departure” to at least one group of noncitzens.15 As with defered action, executive
authority to grant defered enforced departure and extended voluntary departure exists
under the general authority to enforce the immigration laws as set out in INA § 103(a), 8
U.S.C. § 103(a).1

 

[Ockham]

I think his legacy, at this point, seems pretty safe. He's been on the right side of a lot of issues, and really had to fight through an almost unprecedented amount of obstructionism. Immigration has historically been an issue that politicians love to talk about, but then never follow through on, so it would be surprising to see him actually take action on it.

But I don't think him "disgracing" himself is much of a concern. Historically speaking, he's set himself up nicely.

I obviously disagree - him taking such a move as amnesty by EO shows his legacy is not secure at all. My view is he's been probably the most incompetent president of the last 100 years, he continues to lie about his one large accomplishment "Obamacare". His failures, broken promises, outright lies - I don't doubt he is feeling forced to do an EO on amnesty in an effort to salvage a legacy. My prediction is history will not be very kind to him.

 

[whysoserious]

I obviously disagree - him taking such a move as amnesty by EO shows his legacy is not secure at all. My view is he's been probably the most incompetent president of the last 100 years, he continues to lie about his one large accomplishment "Obamacare". His failures, broken promises, outright lies - I don't doubt he is feeling forced to do an EO on amnesty in an effort to salvage a legacy. My prediction is history will not be very kind to him.

Do you even remember the previous president? The one who entered into multiple wars with no plan, lied about the reasons behind the wars, left office with the worst economy in at least 30 years*, and literally has almost no accomplishments to even speak of. I really am trying to think of something that passed that was a game changer under Bush, and I really can't. I mean, he lowered taxes**...

Bush has no legacy, other than negativity. A recession and multiple poorly run wars. Obama has the killing of OBL and nationalizing health care during an era of major obstructionism.

*Which could have been worse but the predicted double-dip was avoided thanks to the stimulus that was force-fed to republicans as they kicked and screamed.
**Which really doesn't follow Keynesian economics, and put the nation in a bad situation when it needed to spend during the recession.

 

[Ockham]

Do you even remember the previous president? The one who entered into multiple wars with no plan, lied about the reasons behind the wars, left office with the worst economy in at least 30 years*, and literally has almost no accomplishments to even speak of. I really am trying to think of something that passed that was a game changer under Bush, and I really can't. I mean, he lowered taxes**...

Sure I remember the previous president - but this thread isn't about the previous president. The one thing that stands out is his support for Africa in both money and man power - he was dedicated to helping African countries.

Bush has no legacy, other than negativity. A recession and multiple poorly run wars. Obama has the killing of OBL and nationalizing health care during an era of major obstructionism.

*Which could have been worse but the predicted double-dip was avoided thanks to the stimulus that was force-fed to republicans as they kicked and screamed.
**Which really doesn't follow Keynesian economics, and put the nation in a bad situation when it needed to spend during the recession.

Quite possible - but this is about Obama, not Bush. Nice try at deflection though.

 

[American]

From the linked article:

The election was not a repudiation of Democratic policies. It was the triumph of Republican politics, the politics of distortion, distraction and deceit. By first admitting amnesty was not at issue and then attempting to say it was, the author is showing himself to be little more than a Republican tool.

That would be impossible considering the fact that the media is basically run by liberals, with Fox News being the only location where a conservative can be found. So your allegation is very likely wrong.

 

[whysoserious]

Sure I remember the previous president - but this thread isn't about the previous president. The one thing that stands out is his support for Africa in both money and man power - he was dedicated to helping African countries.

Quite possible - but this is about Obama, not Bush. Nice try at deflection though.

I only brought that up because you said he was the worst president in the last 100 years. I just couldn't disagree more. I look at the state of the country now, and I look at it in 2008 when he came into office, and quite frankly, it looks pretty damned good.

I am not aware of the effort to help African countries by Bush. I'll have to look into that.

 

[American]

Do you even remember the previous president? The one who entered into multiple wars with no plan, lied about the reasons behind the wars, left office with the worst economy in at least 30 years*, and literally has almost no accomplishments to even speak of. I really am trying to think of something that passed that was a game changer under Bush, and I really can't. I mean, he lowered taxes**...

Bush has no legacy, other than negativity. A recession and multiple poorly run wars. Obama has the killing of OBL and nationalizing health care during an era of major obstructionism.

*Which could have been worse but the predicted double-dip was avoided thanks to the stimulus that was force-fed to republicans as they kicked and screamed.
**Which really doesn't follow Keynesian economics, and put the nation in a bad situation when it needed to spend during the recession.

I know it's tough even thinking about Obama, given his embarrassing performance thus far.....and the direct reflection upon you as a voter. But try to remain on topic, so we can learn from this mistake.

 

[Ockham]

I only brought that up because you said he was the worst president in the last 100 years.

Actually I didn't say that. I said:

probably the most incompetent president of the last 100 years,

I just couldn't disagree more. I look at the state of the country now, and I look at it in 2008 when he came into office, and quite frankly, it looks pretty damned good.

I am not aware of the effort to help African countries by Bush. I'll have to look into that.

You may be disagreeing because you misread what I posted and interpreted it through your heavy bias. When the facts are all piled up, the lies totaled, the obfuscation, lack of transparency, scandals, etc.etc., I think history will agree with me and not you. You disagree - that's wonderful. It's what makes our country great.

 

[whysoserious]

You may be disagreeing because you misread what I posted and interpreted it through your heavy bias. When the facts are all piled up, the lies totaled, the obfuscation, lack of transparency, scandals, etc.etc., I think history will agree with me and not you. You disagree - that's wonderful. It's what makes our country great.

Agreed - that is one thing that makes our country great. But I don't think squabbling over the difference between calling the job someone did incompetent vs the worst is really what makes it great.

And let's be honest, if the "scandals" had any weight to them, you'd be right and he'd be gone. But there isn't, and he's not.

 

[MMC]

Sure I remember the previous president - but this thread isn't about the previous president. The one thing that stands out is his support for Africa in both money and man power - he was dedicated to helping African countries.



Quite possible - but this is about Obama, not Bush. Nice try at deflection though.

One does wonder why a Liberal Law Professor would be sounding off on this......why do you think Turley is bringing this to the forefront over separation of powers?

 

[Ockham]

Agreed - that is one thing that makes our country great. But I don't think squabbling over the difference between calling the job someone did incompetent vs the worst is really what makes it great.

It has to do with language, which the liberal progressives know very much about. Accurate language is important.

And let's be honest, if the "scandals" had any weight to them, you'd be right and he'd be gone. But there isn't, and he's not.

How would he be "gone" with a Senate controlled by Democrats? He won't be gone after January 2nd, even if Impeached because the Senate does not have enough GOP votes to make him "gone". I think you're underestimating the polarization and votes down party lines in Washington. Nothing short of a public display of multiple acts of treason, with audio, video and at least 100 impartial witnesses would have Obama "gone". Since we're being honest and all.