Dictators don't defer to legislators to formulate critical policy
Sidney. I fear all that pussy chasing has warped your thinking.
Obama may have delusions, but one is not to be a dictator. He certainly was delusional to approach the quest for bipartisanship.
A leader with dictatorial instincts would impose central control over every aspect of government, not allow committee chairs in the legislature to write the laws.
The health insurance reform has become chaotic because the legislative process dealing with major and complex issues is always chaotic. It has been 79 years and 18 Presidents since universal health insurance was first proposed by - that old socialist, I mean - Republican President Teddy Roosevelt.
And the US constitution - God bless it - guarantees that any President with dictatorial instincts will come a cropper. Case in point - Mr. Tricky Dick Nixon.
You are categorically wrong in your statement that "in 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States forced the President of the United States from office for abuse of power." That is not what happened. I know. I was there.
Now a true statement would be "In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States abused its power and forced the ascension of George W. Bush to the Presidency of the United States." They issued the first ever decision that only applied in a single case. Mind-fucking-boggling as we Bostonians say!
In 1974, the SCOTUS didn't force Nixon from power, but it did require him to obey the law. The nine court justices didn't accuse him of abusing power, they just told him he coudn't.
From 1973 through 1976 I was a chief assistant to US Senator Inouye from Hawaii. I worked for him on the famous Watergate Committee. That entity investigated the myriad crimes committed by Nixon and his top aides. Our investigations led to criminal trials which ended up putting the numerous Nixon aides and his Attorney General in jail.
When Nixon refused to turn the famous secret tapes of his Oval Office conduct to prosecutors as material evidence in a raft of felony cases, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the President had to obey the law and provide that evidence. They ruled "no man is above the law." Pretty good idea if you ask me.
Nixon knew the tapes proved he had been at the center of a criminal enterprise and he was toast. His ordering of breaking and entering, his money laundering, his suborning perjury, his running an unlawful cover up of a long string of crimes, his cheating on his taxes while he was President, etc. Were documented, on the public record and undeniable. He had to go.
A delegation of senior Republican leaders went to the White House to inform him there were only a small handful of Senators who would not vote to impeach him and remove him from office. Those Republican leaders forced his hand, not the Court. So he resigned the Presidency.
As Walter Cronkite would say "And that's the way it was!
As a coda, many Nixon apologists claim he only did what other Presidents had done. That is bullshit, of course. There is scarce evidence to support those claims. But in the nation where free speech rules, you can say anything. Just ask Glenn Beck!
Obama haters. Multiple choice invectives
Alamo. No, not all critics of Obama are racists, just a lot of them. Just track the age, race and regional demographics of who spout the over-the-top comments, listen to the language and make a reasoned judgment and you will have a hard time making the case race is not a factor in much of the vitriolic opposition to the man.
It is unfortunate that so much venom is aimed at our political leaders. Opposition and criticism is fair, some deserve our disdain, but the tone is pathetic.
For example, with all due respect I don't think you are the arbiter of what the "real world" consists of. In reality the real world is a pretty complex place with lots of moving parts, not just some enclave where only business owners and entrepreneurs are worthy of respect. Writers, professors, artists, priests, laborers, community organizers, bar tenders, waitresses, and chicas and on and on all make up the real world.
Obama's achievements don't need my elucidation and don't warrant your silly insult.
If you can get Powell's email address get in touch with him and ask him what he thinks about how Obama is doing and what is being done to him. I bet you would come away with a different attitude than you articulate today.
As for Honduras, Obama is a little busy with other priorities and I don't quite see Latin America slipping into the abyss because his instinct has been to react to an internal political dispute in a sovereign nation with deliberation and tact.
Interesting Article / USA=Argentinta?
Not sure link appeared, but here is the article.
His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.
There are "troubling similarities" between the US President's actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.
In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.
The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: "[Franklin D Roosevelt's] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."
Although the authors support the Federal Reserve's moves to slash interest rates to just above zero and embark on quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the system, they warn that greater intervention could set the US back further. Rowley says: "It is also not impossible that the US will experience the kind of economic collapse from first to Third World status experienced by Argentina under the national-socialist governance of Juan Peron."
The paper, which recommends that the US return to a more laissez-faire economic system rather than intervening further in activity, has been endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan, who said: "We have learned some things from comparable experiences of the 1930s' Great Depression, perhaps enough to reduce the severity of the current contraction. But we have made no progress toward putting limits on political leaders, who act out their natural proclivities without any basic understanding of what makes capitalism work."
The authors of the pamphlet, Charles K. Rowley and Nathanael Smith, give their views.
My friends. Now I am sure you have open minds!
Jackson. Maybe you missed it, but some of your fellow members are in my camp, as witnessed by their comments. In any case I am certain you welcome opposing points of view on issues beyond whether to negotiate with the chicas or not.
Later in the week I will address the Metkim posting on the recent paper issued by conservative economists, supported by the Nobel Prize winning Professor James Buchanan, which questions Obama's use of government spending to rescue the economy from collapse. Suffice it to point out a very opposite view is argued by other Nobel Prize winning economists including Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz.
The dueling Nobel winners' arguments go back over eighty years to the whether the New Deal worked. Over many years and hundreds of books and studies, neither side has ever decisively won those debates. Now the same issues and arguments are being debated as relates to Obama.
In many ways, the conflicts are semi-religious in nature - like Jews saying Christ was a great prophet and Christians claiming he was the Son of God. Neither can prove the point. In economics, however, the claims are buttressed with charts, tables and brain-numbing statistics.
This post addresses Sidney's error-filled claim of Obama as a serial violator of the US Constitution.
Whoever was the source of your claims, my friend Sid, needs to do some serious research on the evolution of constitutional law – especially the concept of "implied powers." As a former professor of constitutional law, Obama knows what the Founding Fathers wrote and meant and what has evolved as that document has been interpreted over 220 years.
Using Sidney's framing method – one can say "No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to create an air force." That is true. Perhaps because, as smart as the boys from Philadelphia were in 1787, they didn't know man would fly. No bother though, because Congress has the power to raise and support the armed forces. In constitutional law that translates into an "implied power" to create an air force.
Similarly, under the same construction, each of the things denied under the Constitution according to Sid that were carried out by Obama are completely legitimate. They are "implied" - derived from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
US courts have taken an expansive view of the implied powers – specifically related to commerce - since the earliest days of the republic. The courts have given full sanction to a wide range of business-related actions of the federal government and in so doing allowed the US economy to grow, prosper and become the envy of the world.
If the complaints made by Sidney had any basis in constitutional law, rest assured AG Eric Holder would be a very busy boy handling cases brought by the aggrieved victims of the dastardly deeds of Obama's constitution busters. As far as I know no such cases are awaiting adjudication anywhere in the US.
Sidney states:
"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to fire private company employees." True.
In fact:
The Obama Administration has NOT "fired" a single bank or automotive executive. As a condition of being provided with taxpayer funds to help them survive (a time honored tradition practiced by prior administrations and an implied power of the executive) Obama's team, as a condition of future funding, required the boards at the finance-seeking institutions to institute changes in failed management practices to better protect the government investments (a prudent step that is standard practice among investors when entities seek new financing)
The boards of directors at these entities acting, in their capacity the ultimate deciders on personnel, a handful of senior executives go, whose failures had led to their firms need for government assistance. They were not fired by Obama, nor were their failures rewarded with taxpayer funds.
Sidney states:
"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to own private companies. Technically true.
In 1979, the US government bailed out Chrysler using an agreement with a wide range of provisos. In a similar manner the GM bailout was structured by the Obama team in order to keep a critical company afloat.
The GM deal included a proviso that the US taxpayers receive an equity stake in the renewed GM. The equity deal protects the taxpayers' interests, assuring a return on the public investment when the company returns to profitability (a prudent step that is standard practice among investors when entities seek new financing)
Nothing in the constitution precludes government from providing financial assistance to private companies, nor from structuring loans that require repayment through equity, direct payments, etc. These have been deemed implied powers for decades.
Sidney states:
"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to set salaries in the private sector, as Obama's administration is currently doing in banks that have taken TARP money."
The Obama team has NEVER set salaries for TARP recipient banks. What it did was to agree that TARP supported companies can pay their executives as much as they see fit. For salaries in excess of $500,000 compensation would be issued as stock. The only restriction is that the execs cannot sell their new holdings, until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government. Nothing unconstitutional here, rather it all seems both wise and fair.
Sidney states:
"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the executive branch the power to appoint Czars to make rules governing private industry, that role is reserved for the legislative branch of our government."
The word "Czar" is journalistic shorthand and has NO official status or standing under Obama, nor did it under any of the "Czars" (for Drugs, etc. Appointed by previous Presidents.
The so-called Obama Czars, like their predecessors, have no extra-legal or unconstitutional powers. Any regulatory or executive power they exercise is derived from the authorizing legislation passed by Congress that precisely defines the scope of those powers.
Sidney states:
Nowhere in the U. S. Constitution does it give the President the power to set aside contracts.
The Obama administration has NOT "set aside" ANY outstanding GM or other company contracts. GM itself amended contracts of all sorts as it has worked its way out of the threat of closing down and prepared to accept government funds.
It is completely legal for entities to renegotiate and restructure contracts. It happens every day. When GM restructured its business, prior to getting government funding, it negotiated with ALL of its stakeholders. Management, bondholders, the unions, et al, ended up with a raft of amended contracts on compensation, etc. Everyone made sacrifices. No one group was "shafted" at the expense of another. Nothing done by the Obama team or GM was illegal or unconstitutional.
I apologize for being pedantic, but the massive amount of misinformation that shows up on blogs including this one needs to be refuted.
An informed citizenry is the only true guarantor of freedom!