What we learned from Barack Obama - Advice for the next Republican

This from WSJ, what Obama taught us, ” Nobody can really stop a president. Congress can only complain. The judiciary moves too slowly to make a difference (look at Obama’s illegal recess appointments). Turns out the only thing that ever really restrained the chief executive was that oath he took. Our side has always taken that seriously. Hmmm.”

"Speaking of taxes, do remember to thank Chief Justice John Roberts for declaring the ObamaCare individual mandate a tax. Not enforcing that one, either! That's O-Care repealed. Check. You ran on reducing the regulatory burden. We're sending a list of rules under major laws that you can instruct agencies and the Justice Department to no longer uphold. You know, the damaging stuff buried in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Labor Relations Act, Dodd-Frank, McCain-Feingold. All unworkable!

"We're also readying a memo for the Justice Department, listing areas in which it should forgo suits for federal violations: Title IX, voting rights, affirmative action, wages and overtime. It's not like anyone can "make" us do anything. Ask all those marijuana smokers in Alaska."

If the next Republican president behaves like Obama remember he is behaving like Obama and Democrats have no right to complain.

Posted by Christine & John at November 20, 2014 11:22 PM
Comments
Comment #385843
Nobody can really stop a president.

This is actually old news. Remember Andrew Jackson’s decision to ignore the rule of law when he permitted the Cherokees to be forcibly removed from their Georgian homeland.

The key issue here is a breakdown in norms and precedents. Congress and Obama continue to engage in a game of one-upmanship as they try to outdo the other with actions that are technically Constitutional, but blatantly violate the spirit of the founders. This started with the unprecedented proliferation of filibusters in the 111th Congress and intensified when the 112th and 113th Congresses began threatening government shutdowns and debt crises in order to extract policy concessions.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 21, 2014 11:57 AM
Comment #385846
This started with the unprecedented proliferation of filibusters in the 111th Congress and intensified when the 112th and 113th Congresses began threatening government shutdowns and debt crises in order to extract policy concessions.

So the result of the filibusters of the 111th Congress was to Republicans significant gains:

The Democratic Party suffered massive defeats in many national and state level elections, with many seats switching to Republican Party control. Although the President’s party usually loses congressional, statewide and local seats in a midterm elections, the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression. The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority, and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections. The Republicans gained six seats in the U.S. Senate, expanding its minority, and also gained 680 seats in state legislative races,[3][4][5] to break the previous majority record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974.[5] This left Republicans in control of 26 state legislatures, compared to the 15 still controlled by Democrats. After the election, Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships.

The 2010 midterm election is also the third consecutive midterm election held in a president’s first term where Republicans picked up seats across both houses of congress. It was also the second consecutive midterm election where party control in the House of Representatives changed hands.

The results of the Republicans threatening government shutdowns during the 112th and 113th Congress can be seen in the 2014 elections. More GOP Governors, more state governments, more GOP House seats, and a pickup 9 Senate seats (including Landrieu’s) . I’m not really sure of your point.

Posted by: Sam Joness at November 21, 2014 1:25 PM
Comment #385849

Warren refers to shutting down some spending by the government by withholding funds a blatant violation of the spirit of the founders.

James Madison in the Federalist papers called the power of the purse; “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people”. It checks the power of the President and gives Congress vast influence over American society, because federal spending reaches into the life of every citizen.”

Warren really doesn’t understand why the founders gave this power to our House of Representatives and why it may be used to thwart some plans of Emperor Obama.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 21, 2014 2:27 PM
Comment #385856

What happened in the 111th and 112th Congress isn’t an example of what the founders imagined Congress doing with the power of the purse. A much better example would be the Boland Amendment of Iran-Contra fame. The biggest difference here is that only a minority of Congressmen ever favored these government shutdowns/debt ceiling crises, but there’s the added aspect where the Boland amendment specifically prohibited the expenditure of funds on a specific purpose. However, the Boland Amendment was not designed to repeal a preexisting law. That’s not so with the current horde of Congressmen who do these things just to gain symbolic posturing among the Tea Party crowd.

In Federalist paper 56, Madison wrote:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.

In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 21, 2014 3:36 PM
Comment #385858

Royal, have you ever noticed how the left like to pick and choose what part of the Constitution or Federalist papers they believe.

This is interesting, since when you back a liberal into the corner (Daugherty for one), they will deny the Constitution is even legal. It is an evolving document…constantly changing. The real interesting thing is that the left believes the exact same thing about the Bible…it is also an evolving document. So, to the left, we really have no solid foundation, physical or spiritual.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 21, 2014 3:46 PM
Comment #385859

The “power of the purse” checks the power of the president. The purse is in the hands of the house and thus the most responsive body to the people electing them.

The founders were not fearing a takeover by congress or the states, but rather by the chief executive.

What we are witnessing today by Emperor obama is exactly what the framers feared most. The house is best positioned, by our constitution, to most immediately remedy obama’s excesses by withholding money for his nefarious purposes.

There is no need to stop funding for every government purpose, just funding for that which the house finds objectionable. This is exactly what the founders intended.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 21, 2014 3:50 PM
Comment #385861

Sam is correct. Many on the left believe that both the constitution and the bible mean something different today than when written. Both documents must be interpreted differently from the original meaning to accommodate some personal desire inconsistent with the original intent.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 21, 2014 3:58 PM
Comment #385863

Obama did not even try to get immigration passed when he controlled both Houses for 2 reasons; first, the Democrats would not have supported him (thus the reason Reid blocked it); and second, the Democrats would have lost more than the House in 2010.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 21, 2014 4:05 PM
Comment #385862

Thanks Sam for the funny cartoon and great analytical piece.

I find it somewhat ironic that today the house has sued obama for NOT ENFORCING OBAMACARE just as obama decides not to enforce our immigration laws.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 21, 2014 4:05 PM
Comment #385864

When you’re the “Emperor” or “King”, you can do (or not do) anything you want.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 21, 2014 4:07 PM
Comment #385865

Christian conservatives face the same problems with liberals as political conservatives do with liberals. Liberals try to deny the use of the Bible, as liberals try to deny the use of the Constitution.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 21, 2014 4:12 PM
Comment #385867

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/cartoons_of_the_week/index.html

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 21, 2014 4:45 PM
Comment #385868
The “power of the purse” checks the power of the president.
Yes it does. Nobody disputes that.
The founders were not fearing a takeover by congress or the states, but rather by the chief executive.

The founders feared a lot of things. They feared a tyranny of the majority, which is why they gave minorities protections. They also feared that a minority would abuse their rights and subjugate the democratic process. They also spoke about natural law and the rights we all have endowed by our Creator that cannot be abrogated by any worldly institution. The list here goes on and on.

There is no need to stop funding for every government purpose, just funding for that which the house finds objectionable.

This isn’t what the house did earlier. The house stopped funding for the entire government and also wreaked havoc on America’s credit all for a charade to impress the minority of Americans that constitute their base.

most immediately remedy obama’s excesses by withholding money for his nefarious purposes.
Withholding money in order to prevent a President from doing something nefarious is definitely within the spirit of the founders. (See the Boland Amendment for an example of this). However, a duly passed law that has been found to be constitutional by the supreme court is NOT something nefarious.
Both documents must be interpreted differently from the original meaning to accommodate some personal desire inconsistent with the original intent.

The Constitution makes no mention of an Air Force, so does that mean the Air Force is unconstitutional? Or do we make the commonsense conclusion that a government funded Air Force is entirely within the spirit of what the founders imagined when they authored the words “commond defense”?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 21, 2014 4:46 PM
Comment #385871

Warren, your spin is slowing down some. You are in agreement with Madison and others that our founders placed the purse strings in the house as it is most responsive to the citizen.

There are no limitations on this power found in the constitution. The house is not obligated to fund presidential ambitions and desires. The house is suing the executive for not enforcing obamacare. It may well sue the executive for not enforcing our immigration laws. Or, it may not fund the costs associated with not enforcing our immigration laws.

At this point, with the entire house being most recently elected, it is logical that this body most closely mirrors the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

I see no effort by the house to usurp any presidential power. I see efforts by the executive to usurp powers of the congress. Immigration laws are legal and must be enforced by the executive until congress changes them. Anything else is a violation of the executives oath of office.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 21, 2014 5:19 PM
Comment #385880

Warren

There are lots of things I really don’t like that were enacted by Congress over the past decades. When our Republican president decides not to enforce some of those liberal laws, I wonder if our leftist friends will be happy and calm.

Posted by: C&J at November 21, 2014 8:39 PM
Comment #385890
At this point, with the entire house being most recently elected, it is logical that this body most closely mirrors the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

Royal, you are assuming it was an election where the Republicans were elected by a majority. You seem to forget that Obama was able to see in his crystal ball and see the 2/3rd’s of the voters, who did not vote, actually would have voted for Obama’s policies…had the voted. This is bad, but what’s worse is that the left now believes what Obama sees in his crystal ball.

Texas and Oklahoma have now filed law suits against Obama for violating immigration laws. It will go to the SCOTUS. It’s sad, because it will cost the taxpayers and will take time, but Obama will finally be put into his place for creating a Constitutional crisis.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 21, 2014 11:05 PM
Comment #385896

Warren


RF said:
“There is no need to stop funding for every government purpose, just funding for that which the house finds objectionable.”

Warren said:
“This isn’t what the house did earlier. The house stopped funding for the entire government and also wreaked havoc on America’s credit all for a charade to impress the minority of Americans that constitute their base.”


Funny…I remember the house proposing funding the budget piece by piece so that essential services and functions were not affected. I also recall Harry Reid saying he’d have no part of it. He said such bills would never see the light of day in the senate. I also remember dear leader saying he would veto any bill that reached his desk that didn’t fund the gov’t in its entirety.

So in retrospect who really wanted the gov’t shut down for purely theatrical reasons ? Hmmmmmmm ?


Posted by: dbs at November 22, 2014 10:31 AM
Comment #385989

Remember Harry Reid saying “Why would we do that?” when asked if he would fund cancer research for children?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2014 7:28 PM
Post a comment