Good article about the "unitary executive"

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
Surprisingly in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-nelson11-2008oct11,0,224216.story
Bush's aggressive exercise of unilateral powers has attracted serious opposition. Unfortunately, too many imagine that the unitary executive doctrine and its kingly prerogatives will leave office with him. That hope is false. History teaches that presidents do not give up power -- both Democrats and Republicans have worked to keep it. And besides, hoping the next president will give back some powers means conceding that it is up to him to make that decision.

If people have found Bush's exercise of executive power alarming, they should not only begin questioning presidential candidates about it, they should make it clear to their congressional representatives that they want these excess powers checked. Barack Obama has already promised that he will continue using signing statements, though he will not act as if they have the force of law. Interestingly enough, John McCain has suggested he will end the practice. These slim indicators deserve more pressure and scrutiny.
Click to expand...

The pols we keep electing are bad enough without a president (such as Bush, but to be fair just about every other president has done one thing or another) constantly trying to upset our carefully crafted checks-and-balances system, don't you think? I'd sure like to know where Bozo A and Bozo B really stand on this issue.
 
"Unfortunately, too many imagine that the unitary executive doctrine and its kingly prerogatives will leave office with him. That hope is false."

Yes.
 
What is needed is an unpopular president and a legislature willing to slam the president any time he (or she, lol) thinks of stepping over the line.

If Obama gets elected, that won't happen.

If McCain get elected but the Dems have veto proof majorities, it'll be fine.

The problems with standing up to Bush is he WAS very popular and the Pelosi Congress would rather use his lack of support to build a bigger majority.

Also, following the Constitution would be a good start. A president executing legislation instead of legislating executive acts would be better.
 
Then you just have Dick Cheney telling everyone that he's not really part of the Executive Branch. The law will be twisted and tweaked to fit the needs of those in power not those who might abused by it.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Then you just have Dick Cheney telling everyone that he's not really part of the Executive Branch. The law will be twisted and tweaked to fit the needs of those in power not those who might abused by it.[/quote]

I can't believe the Dems let that slide. It makes people think you're the other side of a counterfeit coin.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What is needed is an unpopular president and a legislature willing to slam the president any time he (or she, lol) thinks of stepping over the line.

If Obama gets elected, that won't happen.

If McCain get elected but the Dems have veto proof majorities, it'll be fine.

The problems with standing up to Bush is he WAS very popular and the Pelosi Congress would rather use his lack of support to build a bigger majority.[/QUOTE]

Got to disagree with this. Clinton was exceptionally popular, but the Republicans sure as hell didn't give him an easy time. It's purely a Democratic position that views the "let's roll over for the other party so they can't attack us" tactic as politically savvy. If McCain gets elected, but the Dems have veto proof majorities ... it won't matter -- half the Democrats will side with Republicans at the drop of a hat so that they can seem "tough on terror," or whatever the hell they're afraid to be labeled. It'll be the Bush situation all over again, where the people who are supposed to stand up and put a check on the ridiculous behavior of an out of control president simply choose not to.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I can't believe the Dems let that slide. It makes people think you're the other side of a counterfeit coin.[/QUOTE]

"Cock up over conspiracy." The Dems aren't getting paid to take a dive -- they're hitting the canvas because they're afraid of getting hurt in the fight. In short: they're not "in on it," they're just cowardly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='trq']"Cock up over conspiracy." The Dems aren't getting paid to take a dive -- they're hitting the canvas because they're afraid of getting hurt in the fight. In short: they're not "in on it," they're just cowardly.[/QUOTE]

As a staunch Democrat I have to say that... I absolutely agree with you.
 
[quote name='trq']If McCain gets elected, but the Dems have veto proof majorities ... it won't matter -- half the Democrats will side with Republicans at the drop of a hat so that they can seem "tough on terror," or whatever the hell they're afraid to be labeled. It'll be the Bush situation all over again, where the people who are supposed to stand up and put a check on the ridiculous behavior of an out of control president simply choose not to.[/quote]

I hadn't thought of that. I'd say it is impossible, but Bush has been controlling Congress since the last elections. I'm sure McCain is smarter and more forceful than Bush.

Would there need to be another terror attack on American soil to strengthen McCain like 9/11 did for Bush or will McCain be able to milk 9/11 like Bush did for 5-7 years?
 
There might be a small attack. Nothing like 9/11 but something to stoke fear.

EDIT -- And Democrats laying down makes voting Democrat harder than ever. I'd like to vote for a politician that will stand up and fight for what's right. At the same time, the Republicans just stand for what their party believes in and that's not necessarily what's best for the country.
 
[quote name='depascal22'] At the same time, the Republicans just stand for what their party believes in and that's not necessarily what's best for the country.[/QUOTE]

I'm really wondering why you think this is only a problem with Republicans.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm really wondering why you think this is only a problem with Republicans.[/quote]

I should've said it this way. Republicans stand for their core beliefs and fight for them. Democrats stand for their core beliefs but don't fight for them.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Only way to fix it is an amendment to the Constitution. Or, if you're feeling radical, a whole new Constitution.[/QUOTE]

No need for a new Constitution or even an amendment. If legislation is well-written and the Supreme Court has its head out of its ass, there is no way bullshit like "signing statements" should be tolerated. Our problem is we've accepted the executive branch basically legislating way too many things, most of the time things that Congress cowardly handed off to it because they were too partisan to come up with real solutions for fear of their party not getting credit or the other party getting credit. It's yet another byproduct of our dysfunctional two-party system.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I should've said it this way. Republicans stand for their core beliefs and fight for them. Democrats stand for their core beliefs but don't fight for them.[/QUOTE]

Democrats have core beliefs? Besides taxing the rich, offering more "free" programs, killing unwanted babies, and giving lipservice to gays and terrorists, what DON'T they fight for ?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No need for a new Constitution or even an amendment. If legislation is well-written and the Supreme Court has its head out of its ass, there is no way bullshit like "signing statements" should be tolerated. Our problem is we've accepted the executive branch basically legislating way too many things, most of the time things that Congress cowardly handed off to it because they were too partisan to come up with real solutions for fear of their party not getting credit or the other party getting credit. It's yet another byproduct of our dysfunctional two-party system.[/QUOTE]

Eh, I dunno.

Have you seen how many people are totally confused by the second amendment and really believe it's referring only to armed government run militias?

And lets not even get started on seperation of church and state and the whole new meanings it took on a century after the constitution was written.

I would not be opposed to a re-write.
 
The Constitution needs an update. It was made my white male land owners for white male land owners over 300 years ago. They couldn't even figure out what to do with slavery and it ended up nearly ending the whole thing only a hundred years later. The two parties have sunk their hooks so deeply into the system, they've made it work only when they're in power. They've committed a coup d'etat right in front our own eyes and it should be enough.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm really wondering why you think this is only a problem with Republicans.[/QUOTE]

Setting aside the "what's best for the country" issue, it's easily verifiable that Republicans vote in lockstep and Democrats don't.

[quote name='elprincipe']No need for a new Constitution or even an amendment. If legislation is well-written and the Supreme Court has its head out of its ass, there is no way bullshit like "signing statements" should be tolerated. Our problem is we've accepted the executive branch basically legislating way too many things, most of the time things that Congress cowardly handed off to it because they were too partisan to come up with real solutions for fear of their party not getting credit or the other party getting credit. It's yet another byproduct of our dysfunctional two-party system.[/QUOTE]

That's absolutely right. I'd only differ in that I'm enough of a cynic to doubt the situation would be one iota different with three, five, or nine parties.

[quote name='bmulligan']Democrats have core beliefs? Besides taxing the rich, offering more "free" programs, killing unwanted babies, and giving lipservice to gays and terrorists, what DON'T they fight for ?[/QUOTE]

Don't be lazy.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Eh, I dunno.

Have you seen how many people are totally confused by the second amendment and really believe it's referring only to armed government run militias?

And lets not even get started on seperation of church and state and the whole new meanings it took on a century after the constitution was written.

I would not be opposed to a re-write.[/QUOTE]

Well, considering how many people have been brainwashed by years of corporate, special interest lobbying that only half of the Second Amendment actually means something, I don't have much confidence that we'd get a Constitution free from undue influence.

*Ahem*
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Eh, I dunno.

Have you seen how many people are totally confused by the second amendment and really believe it's referring only to armed government run militias?

And lets not even get started on seperation of church and state and the whole new meanings it took on a century after the constitution was written.

I would not be opposed to a re-write.[/QUOTE]

I will grant you the Second Amendment is a little bit confusing, especially given the ravages of time.

"Separation of church and state" is not a phrase found in the Constitution, so I have a hard time understanding how you can support rewriting the document on that basis.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The Constitution needs an update. It was made my white male land owners for white male land owners over 300 years ago. They couldn't even figure out what to do with slavery and it ended up nearly ending the whole thing only a hundred years later. The two parties have sunk their hooks so deeply into the system, they've made it work only when they're in power. They've committed a coup d'etat right in front our own eyes and it should be enough.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. As much as I'd like to see all political parties die a horrible death, we can do it anytime we want. Sure, they've built in advantages to the system at this point in the forms of things like party registration and gerrymandering, but if we really wanted the bums out we could vote them out under the current system. The problem is the way we vote and think about politics, not the Constitution.
 
[quote name='trq']Setting aside the "what's best for the country" issue, it's easily verifiable that Republicans vote in lockstep and Democrats don't.[/quote]

Okay, prove it (it's easy right?).

[quote name='trq']That's absolutely right. I'd only differ in that I'm enough of a cynic to doubt the situation would be one iota different with three, five, or nine parties.[/quote]

Eh, I think more parties would be an improvement, but the ideal would be NO parties. Washington was a smart man and knew what has happened would happen when he cautioned against the formation of political parties.
 
The thing is. Who would write another Constitution? People are too lazy to send anyone but more politicians and then you'd have a document that represents what ever polarity the Constitutional Congress would have. If we did it now, it would be a liberal document. Wait two years and it might be heavily conservative.

Too many people would want things like abortion, gay rights, and all the other divisive issues to be set in stone and that might be a bad thing. I think the two parties have successfully divided America on the key issues. Because of that, we'll never be able to come together to get something done for the greater good.

EDIT -- I agree with you 100%, elprincipe. Political parties have to go but what do you suggest? Would there need to be a strong third party before we can get rid of the parties? Would parties still exist anyway but they'll just become secret clubs? Democracy would be in more peril than ever then. You'll have a small number of people that vote in blocs and will get their candidate elected because people will vote for the 30 other people running.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Okay, prove it (it's easy right?).[/QUOTE]

Your sarcasm is misplaced. Do I *ever* say something if I don't have the ability to back it up beforehand? Votes are completely public, so it's easy to see who voted for what. For example, from senate.gov, via Slate:

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:

GOP - 48-0
Dems - 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:

GOP - 0-49
Dems - 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

GOP - 46-0
Dems - 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:

GOP - 49-0
Dems - 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:

GOP - 46-2
Dems - 30-20

To condemn MoveOn.org:

GOP - 49-0
Dems - 23-25

The Protect America Act:

GOP - 44-0
Dems - 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government's official language:

GOP - 48-1
Dems - 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:

GOP - 53-0
Dems - 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:

GOP - 54-0
Dems - 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court:

GOP - 54-0
Dems - 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:

GOP - 48-1
Dems - 29-22
 
Congratulations, you successfully cherry-picked some votes to show your point of view is "right." Tell me, how many did you have to ignore where all the Democrats voted one way and all the Republicans the other?
 
[quote name='depascal22']EDIT -- I agree with you 100%, elprincipe. Political parties have to go but what do you suggest? Would there need to be a strong third party before we can get rid of the parties? Would parties still exist anyway but they'll just become secret clubs? Democracy would be in more peril than ever then. You'll have a small number of people that vote in blocs and will get their candidate elected because people will vote for the 30 other people running.[/QUOTE]

Well, it's never going to be easy to get rid of them. They are firmly entrenched in our society at this point in time, sadly. I do think that if there is a national desire for this to happen it can happen. But it's going to take a wholesale rejection of the two major parties and a realization that there is a better way. Quite frankly, this is going to take people realizing that just because Party X fucked up over a number of years that Party Y, which fucked up before that and will again, is not the answer.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Congratulations, you successfully cherry-picked some votes to show your point of view is "right." Tell me, how many did you have to ignore where all the Democrats voted one way and all the Republicans the other?[/QUOTE]

Oh there were some, to be sure (for example, the Glass-Steagle vote that supposedly ties the economic crisis to Clinton's tenure -- every Republican was for deregulation and every Democrat against). So what? "Sometimes they all vote together, sometimes they don't" isn't "lockstep." Let me put it this way: how many times did the Democrats all vote one way and the Republicans split? You'll have to be the one to tell me; I couldn't find any.
 
I am not sure what that proves exactly, trq. What are you claiming that proves about Republicans exactly? That they are mindless followers?

What I take out of that data is simply that the sliding separation line between the truly left and truly right is currently somewhere near the middle of the Democratic party.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am not sure what that proves exactly, trq. What are you claiming that proves about Republicans exactly? That they are mindless followers?

What I take out of that data is simply that the sliding separation line between the truly left and truly right is currently somewhere near the middle of the Democratic party.[/quote]

Originally Posted by trq
Setting aside the "what's best for the country" issue, it's easily verifiable that Republicans vote in lockstep and Democrats don't.
Quote: elprincipe: Okay, prove it (it's easy right?).
 
[quote name='trq']Oh there were some, to be sure (for example, the Glass-Steagle vote that supposedly ties the economic crisis to Clinton's tenure -- every Republican was for deregulation and every Democrat against). So what? "Sometimes they all vote together, sometimes they don't" isn't "lockstep." Let me put it this way: how many times did the Democrats all vote one way and the Republicans split? You'll have to be the one to tell me; I couldn't find any.[/QUOTE]

Jesus, I didn't realize you were that thick. Here are some I found in five minutes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll683.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll678.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll677.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll660.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll632.xml

and that's just in the last 50 or so votes in the House this year out of almost 700.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am not sure what that proves exactly, trq. What are you claiming that proves about Republicans exactly? That they are mindless followers?

What I take out of that data is simply that the sliding separation line between the truly left and truly right is currently somewhere near the middle of the Democratic party.[/QUOTE]

My point is pretty simple: Republicans vote as a party much more regularly than Democrats do. I think if you look back at the rest of the thread (anyone remember me calling the Democrats in Congress cowardly?), I'm not even making a value judgment about it.

[quote name='elprincipe']Jesus, I didn't realize you were that thick. Here are some I found in five minutes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll683.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll678.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll677.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll660.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll632.xml

and that's just in the last 50 or so votes in the House this year out of almost 700.[/QUOTE]

A quarter of Republicans disagreed with their party about the budget for the DHS. That's totally comparable to say, the vote authorizing force in Iraq. Maybe you can dig up some examples of them being mavericks and refusing to make an official Jose Canseco day, too?

I'm going to be uncharacteristally restrained about your insistance on taking unnecessary potshots and just suggest you might want to reread the rest of the thread, particularly my response to Thrust, since you've obviously got a bug up your ass about this, and it's not really merited.
 
[quote name='trq']My point is pretty simple: Republicans vote as a party much more regularly than Democrats do. I think if you look back at the rest of the thread (anyone remember me calling the Democrats in Congress cowardly?), I'm not even making a value judgment about it.



A quarter of Republicans disagreed with their party about the budget for the DHS. That's totally comparable to say, the vote authorizing force in Iraq. Maybe you can dig up some examples of them being mavericks and refusing to make an official Jose Canseco day, too?

I'm going to be uncharacteristally restrained about your insistance on taking unnecessary potshots and just suggest you might want to reread the rest of the thread, particularly my response to Thrust, since you've obviously got a bug up your ass about this, and it's not really merited.[/QUOTE]

Your point is not valid. I dug up some votes in five minutes from the House site that disproved your point (there are plenty more, and on more important votes too) yet you want to dismiss them by moving the goalposts from your original assertion. What else is to be said but that I can do no more than prove your assertion wrong, which has been done?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Your point is not valid. I dug up some votes in five minutes from the House site that disproved your point (there are plenty more, and on more important votes too) yet you want to dismiss them by moving the goalposts from your original assertion. What else is to be said but that I can do no more than prove your assertion wrong, which has been done?[/QUOTE]

You could prove yourself capable of taking my point without resorting to semantics ("Oh, look, a single Republican voted against Iraq! They don't all vote together!"). Trying to make clear something you're obviously not getting and taking disproportionate umbrage at hardly constitutes "moving the goalposts." Trying this from another direction: you may want to head over to http://polarizedamerica.com/ -- I'm afraid you zipping through the roll-call and doing your own cherry-picking doesn't quite constitute "proof" compared to a detailed mathematical model made out of every vote by every House member over the last 127 years.

PartyUnity_46_109.jpg


Anything else you'd like to have a tedious argument about?
 
[quote name='trq']You could prove yourself capable of taking my point without resorting to semantics ("Oh, look, a single Republican voted against Iraq! They don't all vote together!"). Trying to make clear something you're obviously not getting and taking disproportionate umbrage at hardly constitutes "moving the goalposts." Trying this from another direction: you may want to head over to http://polarizedamerica.com/ -- I'm afraid you zipping through the roll-call and doing your own cherry-picking doesn't quite constitute "proof" compared to a detailed mathematical model made out of every vote by every House member over the last 127 years.

PartyUnity_46_109.jpg


Anything else you'd like to have a tedious argument about?[/QUOTE]

Why argue when you are kindly posting charts proving yourself wrong?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Why argue when you are kindly posting charts proving yourself wrong?[/QUOTE]

Oh? How so? Perhaps I misconstrued the data. Enlighten me.

Also, please note: for whatever reason, in the chart, Republicans are blue and Democrats are red.

EDIT: Oh, I think I see -- I started off talking about Congress and then jumped to using Senate votes to make my point. How about this as a revised original statement? "Setting aside the "what's best for the country" issue, it's easily verifiable that Congressional Republicans vote in lockstep more than Congressional Democrats 90% of the time, and that's been the case in the Senate since roughly 1991, too."

That mathematically concrete enough for the "both parties are equally bad" crowd?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='trq']Oh? How so? Perhaps I misconstrued the data. Enlighten me.[/quote]

To me, the charts (they were interesting, thanks) look to show that both parties are about equal over the years in terms of voting as a bloc, especially considering the scale used (0.70 to 1.00 instead of 0-1). How are you seeing it differently? If House Republicans are 0.92 and House Democrats 0.89, and Senate Democrats are slightly higher than Senate Republicans (2006), how does that show anything else but that both parties are almost equally partisan by this measure?

[quote name='trq']That mathematically concrete enough for the "both parties are equally bad" crowd?[/QUOTE]

Both major parties are definitely not equally bad. At different points in time each one has been slightly less bad than the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top