Gyroscopic Investing

Taken individually, none of Obama’s unilateral maneuvers are particularly outrageous; presidents have been making similar moves for decades now. And yet together they represent a break from the past. Unlike most his predecessors—think FDR inventing the modern administrative state during the Great Depression, or Bush pushing the limits of torture and surveillance after Sept. 11—Obama is not expanding executive power to meet the demands of an external crisis. Instead, he is counteracting a new pattern of partisan behavior—nonstop congressional obstruction—with a new, partisan pattern of his own.

The result is an extraconstitutional arms race of sorts: a new normal that habitually circumvents the legislative process envisioned by the Framers. On one side of the aisle, Republicans are providing a blueprint for minority parties to come, demonstrating how it is possible, and politically advantageous, to use procedural tricks to incapacitate a president they oppose. On the other side of the aisle, Obama is drafting a playbook for future presidents to deploy in response: How to Get What You Want Even If Congress Won’t Give It to You. “Obama is the first president to use his unilateral powers so routinely, especially in the domestic sphere,”? says University of Virginia presidential scholar Sidney Milkis, a self-described moderate Democrat. “And in some ways, that may be more insidious than what came before.”?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... -grab.html

This is a very important point that has been completely ignored by the press (surprise).

Look at the process by which Obama care was passed--BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

NB: it is unlikely that conservatives/rebublicans would behave this way, whereas the nature of many liberals/progressives makes this sort of behavior expected  BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL.

Personally I'm very live and let live and would love to have major issues that don't need to be decided at federal level (as defense does) decided at the local level.

1. You are correct, I was wrong.

2.  It has not happened YET.  Discussions of the republicans POSSIBLY doing what Obama has already done on numerous occasoins e.g. dream act, work for welfare, etc.  are just discussions.

When they actually happen you can conclude the repubcs are as bad as democrats on this issue. 

Every elected federal officeholder (not 100% sure, but certainly the President) swears an oath to uphold the Constitution.  If a law is passed that requires him to do something he believes is unconstitutional, it is his DUTY to ignore it.

Everyone seems to assume that his duty is to follow the law no matter what.  It's exactly the opposite: if he honestly believes it's unconstitutional, then he must ignore the law no matter what.

The law required Obama to deport illegal aliens.  There's no construction by which it could be considered unconstitutional for non-citizens to be deported, so he was entirely in the wrong to ignore this law.

He's announced that he won't defend the Defense of Marriage Act, and taken a lot of flak for that.  In that case, there IS a reasonable construction that the Act could be unconstitutional, so he is probably in the right here.  (For the record, I don't agree, but he must defend the Constitution as he sees it.)

It's also certainly plausible that President Romney would believe the health care tax/non-tax/mandate to be unconstitutional, in which case he MUST refuse to enforce it.

Xan wrote:
It's also certainly plausible that President Romney would believe the health care tax/non-tax/mandate to be unconstitutional, in which case he MUST refuse to enforce it.

It is ironic that Mr. Romney wants to create jobs for 50 million unemployed people but he does not want to create affordable healthcare for 50 million uninsured people.

Why exactly is it bad that people should earn their living and then spend their money the way they see fit, rather than being wards of the state?

Xan wrote: Why exactly is it bad that people should earn their living and then spend their money the way they see fit, rather than being wards of the state?

Because the gov't then cannot control them.  The most instructive division is not into libs and conservatives but into those who want to control others and those who do not.

Xan wrote: The law required Obama to deport illegal aliens.  There's no construction by which it could be considered unconstitutional for non-citizens to be deported, so he was entirely in the wrong to ignore this law.

This is a clear election year politics: he desperately needs Hispanic votes. This is even more important now that he alienated many Catholics and black Evangelicals by abortion drug mandate and his support of gay marriage. Given that the race is pretty tight he does whatever he can to get those votes.

Benko wrote: The most instructive division is not into libs and conservatives but into those who want to control others and those who do not.

Most politicians of all stripes are excited by the idea of controlling others. 

If you aren't interested in controlling others you aren't usually drawn to politics at all.