[PassedOut]

It will be interesting to see what Alito does if the question of how much power the President has to shape the law makes it to the Supreme Court. I expect that many of us remember the grilling he got in 2006 in his confirmation hearings over signing statements. I don't remember all of the details now, but this Wikipedia article has a brief summary of the issue:

Quote

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe. Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them. By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges. As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.

The upswing in the use of signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. Alito — then a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel — of a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."

And, of course, Congress did...

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on 2014-July-17, 12:12, said:

I don't think that a president is supposed to lead. He is supposed to preside.

Our beloved leader, Kim Jong Un - now he is supposed to lead.

"Leader of the Free World," Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he's not supposed to lead? Pfui.

On signing statements, that Wikipedia article also says "The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not," and " judicial review [is] a power of the [Supreme] Court, rather than of the Executive."

It seems to me that "cherry-picking" is exactly what Obama did with Obamacare.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-17, 12:40, said:

It would be difficult, if not impossible for an executive order to circumvent checks and balances as Congress can always pass a law to counteract the executive order while the Supreme Court can find a particular executive order unconstitutional and thus illegal.

I don't copy down everything that Obama (or anyone) says but there are times that he appears to hold this view. I hope someone sits him down and tells him no. A rephrasing, a pretty fair one in my opinion, of this attitude would be "I am going to govern be executive order and if you don't like it, try to stop me." Of course people will try, and will succeed, in stopping him and they will have the broad support of the country as they do so. It will be very ugly.

Adjusting the schedule for implementing the ACA seems to me to be, a fair use of executive order. I don't really know the law nor do I know the details of what was done, but the general concept doesn't offend me. An unbridled use, or an attempt at an unbridled use, or an assertion of a right to unbridled use, of governing by executive order would offend me, and offend just about everyone else, a very great deal. I wouldn't check to see if the president asserting this right is named Bush or Obama.

I recommend, but I don't expect, the following approach
"My fellow Americans, let's talk facts. Israel and the Palestinians will be jointly singing Aul Lang Syne before the Tea Party and I agree on anything. I can briefly manage some items by executive order but quite rightly my powers are limited by the Constitution. So here is what has to happen: If you want the country to be run along Tea Party lines then keep the House as it is, elect more Republicans to the Senate, then in 2016 elect Rick Parry, . If you want the country run more as I see things, elect Democrats to the House and the Senate. But spit or get off the spot. This Tea Party in the House and me in the Presidency sucks. We are doing nothing and we will continue to do nothing. So one way or the other, please choose. God Bless Amerca etc. "

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-17, 16:13, said:

"Leader of the Free World," Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he's not supposed to lead? Pfui.

On signing statements, that Wikipedia article also says "The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not," and " judicial review [is] a power of the [Supreme] Court, rather than of the Executive."

It seems to me that "cherry-picking" is exactly what Obama did with Obamacare.

I don't think the President moved any ACA timelines up but did delay the start of some - I think that is well within the scope of Executive authority.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-17, 16:13, said:

It seems to me that "cherry-picking" is exactly what Obama did with Obamacare.

The following article references most of the relevant court cases

http://www.theatlant.../#disqus_thread

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2014-July-17, 17:12, said:

I recommend, but I don't expect, the following approach
"My fellow Americans, let's talk facts. Israel and the Palestinians will be jointly singing Aul Lang Syne before the Tea Party and I agree on anything. I can briefly manage some items by executive order but quite rightly my powers are limited by the Constitution. So here is what has to happen: If you want the country to be run along Tea Party lines then keep the House as it is, elect more Republicans to the Senate, then in 2016 elect Rick Parry, . If you want the country run more as I see things, elect Democrats to the House and the Senate. But spit or get off the spot. This Tea Party in the House and me in the Presidency sucks. We are doing nothing and we will continue to do nothing. So one way or the other, please choose. God Bless Amerca etc. "

Interesting. It occurs to me that doing nothing is exactly what many voters want from government. Or that many voters dread unhindered action by either party, should they hold both houses and the white house.

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2014-July-18, 05:59, said:

Interesting. It occurs to me that doing nothing is exactly what many voters want from government. Or that many voters dread unhindered action by either party, should they hold both houses and the white house.

As with many things, moderation and cooperation would be nice. Unfortunately, our current choices seem to be total paralysis or total lack of restraint. It's too damn bad.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-17, 16:13, said:

"Leader of the Free World," Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he's not supposed to lead? Pfui.

On signing statements, that Wikipedia article also says "The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not," and " judicial review [is] a power of the [Supreme] Court, rather than of the Executive."

It seems to me that "cherry-picking" is exactly what Obama did with Obamacare.

This is a quote from Richard's article:

Quote

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2014-July-18, 05:59, said:

It occurs to me that doing nothing is exactly what many voters want from government. Or that many voters dread unhindered action by either party, should they hold both houses and the white house.

From an investment standpoint, the best situation historically for increasing US stock market values has been a Democrat in the White House and Republican control of Congress.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2014-July-18, 10:40, said:

From an investment standpoint, the best situation historically for increasing US stock market values has been a Democrat in the White House and Republican control of Congress.

Interesting, but IMO clearly not enough data to draw conclusions.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2014-July-18, 10:40, said:

From an investment standpoint, the best situation historically for increasing US stock market values has been a Democrat in the White House and Republican control of Congress.

What do they say on the investment offers? Past performance does not guarantee future results? Something like that. In fact I do think a Democrat in the WH and a Republican Congress could work well. Just not this sort of Republican Congress.

[kenberg]

To add a little more, as I was driving up to Brookly the other day I was reflecting on the Interstate Highway system, begun under Dwight Eisenhower with the Natioanl Defense highway Act. I also benefited from the National Defense Education Act, also signed by Eisenhower. It's true that Ike had to work "Defense" into these bills to get them passed but they got passed. Maybe the ACA should have been called the National Defense Affordable Care Act.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-July-18, 14:43, said:

What do they say on the investment offers? Past performance does not guarantee future results? Something like that. In fact I do think a Democrat in the WH and a Republican Congress could work well. Just not this sort of Republican Congress.

Yes, the situations that have worked well (for the stock market) have been when one side has full control of congress and the other side the White House. Both sides have had to compromise and neither could do anything extreme. Second best has been a Republican President and a Democrat congress. The deadlocked situation with congress split, as now, has usually worked poorly for investors.

Of course the sample size is never going to be large enough to make serious predictions, but this has been the case for the past century at least, and makes some sense from the perspective of reliable stability.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2014-July-18, 05:59, said:

It occurs to me that doing nothing is exactly what many voters want from government. Or that many voters dread unhindered action by either party, should they hold both houses and the white house.

In addition to investors, who tend to think this way (regardless of the small sample size), there are indeed people who vote that way on principle.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2014-July-18, 14:58, said:

To add a little more, as I was driving up to Brookly the other day I was reflecting on the Interstate Highway system, begun under Dwight Eisenhower with the Natioanl Defense highway Act. I also benefited from the National Defense Education Act, also signed by Eisenhower. It's true that Ike had to work "Defense" into these bills to get them passed but they got passed. Maybe the ACA should have been called the National Defense Affordable Care Act.

ROFL! Yeah.