Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 94

Thread: Have We Had Enough of the Imperial Presidency Yet?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,368
    Thanks
    9,455
    Thanked 8,666 Times in 5,941 Posts
    Groans
    102
    Groaned 548 Times in 540 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Have We Had Enough of the Imperial Presidency Yet?

    Have We Had Enough of the Imperial Presidency Yet?

    Even a feeble president can impose his will on the nation if he lacks any sense of restraint or respect for political norms and guardrails.

    By Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer
    Mr. Kruse and Mr. Zelizer are the authors of “Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974.”

    For all his bluster, Donald Trump is generally seen by presidential observers as a shockingly weak president. Brought to office in an election in which he lost the popular vote, his approval ratings have remained consistently low. Even with his party in control of the White House and Congress for two years, beyond a typical Republican tax cut, Mr. Trump failed to secure a signature legislative accomplishment.

    The president may seem weak, but the presidency remains strong. Mr. Trump has illustrated that even a feeble commander in chief can impose his will on the nation if he lacks any sense of restraint or respect for political norms and guardrails.

    True, Mr. Trump has not been able to run roughshod over Congress or ignore the constraints of the federal courts. But he has been able to inflict extensive damage on our political institutions and public culture. He has used his power to aggravate, rather than calm, the fault lines that have divided our country.

    His “wall” government shutdown is the latest example of his misuse of executive power. To end this essentially pointless standoff of his own making, he is exploring the use of national emergency powers to build a wall Congress and a majority of the public don’t want.

    The Trump administration has provided a new example of an old concept: the “imperial presidency.” That term, famously used by the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1973 to describe the excesses and abuses of the Nixon White House, fell out of use almost as soon as President Richard Nixon fell from grace. The reckoning of Watergate and the first-ever resignation of a president seemed to show that the executive branch was not as uncontrollable as it had once seemed.

    Congress enacted a wide range of reforms that promised to restrain presidential power. The War Powers Act of 1973 created mechanisms to ensure that Congress authorized the deployment of American troops abroad. The Budget Reform of 1974 centralized the process used by the House and the Senate to make decisions about spending money so as to make the legislative branch more of an equal of the executive. The Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1974 established a system of public finance for presidential elections along with spending and contribution limits.

    The National Emergencies Act of 1976 authorized the president to initiate emergency powers of government, but with the condition that he or she specify the particular provisions in detail.

    (This is the authority President Trump has reportedly explored as a way of funding his wall.) Intelligence reforms imposed limits on the C.I.A. and F.B.I., whose surveillance and national security operations had greatly enhanced the president’s power.

    Last but not least, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 sought to watch against a replay of Watergate by establishing the Office of the Independent Counsel to ensure that there would be independent investigations into executive branch corruption.

    Despite these reforms, four decades later, the “imperial presidency” still seems to be alive and well. What went wrong?

    The most familiar challenge stems from the fact that in the midst of national security crises, much of the nation remains willing to allow presidents to respond to its perceived enemies. Despite the War Powers Act and the larger lessons of Vietnam, Congress has continued to allow presidents to send troops into combat without a formal declaration of war.

    In response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Congress passed legislation authorizing a vast expansion of the national security system that gave President George W. Bush and his successors access to new organizations, programs and institutions through which to pursue national security goals without congressional support.

    Since the 1970s, Democrats and Republicans have sorted themselves by party, with less room for internal dissent and less of a will to criticize or challenge a president from one’s own party. Both parties have been willing to grant the president more authority when it served their purpose.

    The main dynamic for Democrats has centered around party leaders supporting presidents who use executive action, through regulatory orders and rule making, to deal with urgent policy problems that congressional Republicans oppose.

    Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton turned to executive power to deal with energy and climate change when Congress refused to do so. President Barack Obama did the same on immigration after congressional obstruction prevented compromise legislation from passing.



    continued

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/o...wall-weak.html
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kudzu For This Post:

    christiefan915 (01-12-2019), Phantasmal (01-12-2019), ThatOwlWoman (01-12-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    28,612
    Thanks
    11,538
    Thanked 9,345 Times in 6,368 Posts
    Groans
    641
    Groaned 739 Times in 688 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    No, you haven't. You just don't like the imperial powers being used for things you don't want. You had no problem with it for the past 2 (D) presidents and will be chomping at the bit for the next (D) to expand the powers even further.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Quetzalcoatl For This Post:

    Irish Exit (01-19-2019), Truth Detector (01-18-2019)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    35,145
    Thanks
    154
    Thanked 4,139 Times in 3,767 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 371 Times in 360 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    Have We Had Enough of the Imperial Presidency Yet?

    Even a feeble president can impose his will on the nation if he lacks any sense of restraint or respect for political norms and guardrails.

    By Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer
    Mr. Kruse and Mr. Zelizer are the authors of “Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974.”

    For all his bluster, Donald Trump is generally seen by presidential observers as a shockingly weak president. Brought to office in an election in which he lost the popular vote, his approval ratings have remained consistently low. Even with his party in control of the White House and Congress for two years, beyond a typical Republican tax cut, Mr. Trump failed to secure a signature legislative accomplishment.

    The president may seem weak, but the presidency remains strong. Mr. Trump has illustrated that even a feeble commander in chief can impose his will on the nation if he lacks any sense of restraint or respect for political norms and guardrails.

    True, Mr. Trump has not been able to run roughshod over Congress or ignore the constraints of the federal courts. But he has been able to inflict extensive damage on our political institutions and public culture. He has used his power to aggravate, rather than calm, the fault lines that have divided our country.

    His “wall” government shutdown is the latest example of his misuse of executive power. To end this essentially pointless standoff of his own making, he is exploring the use of national emergency powers to build a wall Congress and a majority of the public don’t want.

    The Trump administration has provided a new example of an old concept: the “imperial presidency.” That term, famously used by the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1973 to describe the excesses and abuses of the Nixon White House, fell out of use almost as soon as President Richard Nixon fell from grace. The reckoning of Watergate and the first-ever resignation of a president seemed to show that the executive branch was not as uncontrollable as it had once seemed.

    Congress enacted a wide range of reforms that promised to restrain presidential power. The War Powers Act of 1973 created mechanisms to ensure that Congress authorized the deployment of American troops abroad. The Budget Reform of 1974 centralized the process used by the House and the Senate to make decisions about spending money so as to make the legislative branch more of an equal of the executive. The Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1974 established a system of public finance for presidential elections along with spending and contribution limits.

    The National Emergencies Act of 1976 authorized the president to initiate emergency powers of government, but with the condition that he or she specify the particular provisions in detail.

    (This is the authority President Trump has reportedly explored as a way of funding his wall.) Intelligence reforms imposed limits on the C.I.A. and F.B.I., whose surveillance and national security operations had greatly enhanced the president’s power.

    Last but not least, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 sought to watch against a replay of Watergate by establishing the Office of the Independent Counsel to ensure that there would be independent investigations into executive branch corruption.

    Despite these reforms, four decades later, the “imperial presidency” still seems to be alive and well. What went wrong?

    The most familiar challenge stems from the fact that in the midst of national security crises, much of the nation remains willing to allow presidents to respond to its perceived enemies. Despite the War Powers Act and the larger lessons of Vietnam, Congress has continued to allow presidents to send troops into combat without a formal declaration of war.

    In response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Congress passed legislation authorizing a vast expansion of the national security system that gave President George W. Bush and his successors access to new organizations, programs and institutions through which to pursue national security goals without congressional support.

    Since the 1970s, Democrats and Republicans have sorted themselves by party, with less room for internal dissent and less of a will to criticize or challenge a president from one’s own party. Both parties have been willing to grant the president more authority when it served their purpose.

    The main dynamic for Democrats has centered around party leaders supporting presidents who use executive action, through regulatory orders and rule making, to deal with urgent policy problems that congressional Republicans oppose.

    Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton turned to executive power to deal with energy and climate change when Congress refused to do so. President Barack Obama did the same on immigration after congressional obstruction prevented compromise legislation from passing.



    continued

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/o...wall-weak.html
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...tates-n1920606

    That's why the results of the "Emperor's" unauthorized actions are now having to be corrected.

    Pucker up since you had no problem with the black guy doing things even he said he couldn't do.

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    76,795
    Thanks
    1,846
    Thanked 9,064 Times in 6,079 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 414 Times in 386 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    I don't remember a single D upset over Mr. "I have a pen and a phone" Obama, the Imperial President.
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Damocles For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-18-2019)

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    35,145
    Thanks
    154
    Thanked 4,139 Times in 3,767 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 371 Times in 360 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzalcoatl View Post
    No, you haven't. You just don't like the imperial powers being used for things you don't want. You had no problem with it for the past 2 (D) presidents and will be chomping at the bit for the next (D) to expand the powers even further.
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...tates-n1920606

    kudzu didn't have a problem with this imperial action.

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,368
    Thanks
    9,455
    Thanked 8,666 Times in 5,941 Posts
    Groans
    102
    Groaned 548 Times in 540 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    I don't remember a single D upset over Mr. "I have a pen and a phone" Obama, the Imperial President.
    You mean this:

    Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton turned to executive power to deal with energy and climate change when Congress refused to do so.

    President Barack Obama did the same on immigration after congressional obstruction prevented compromise legislation from passing.
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kudzu For This Post:

    rjhenn (01-12-2019), ThatOwlWoman (01-12-2019)

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    35,145
    Thanks
    154
    Thanked 4,139 Times in 3,767 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 371 Times in 360 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    I don't remember a single D upset over Mr. "I have a pen and a phone" Obama, the Imperial President.
    I don't remember a single D addressing this:
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...tates-n1920606

  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Realville
    Posts
    29,999
    Thanks
    1,366
    Thanked 5,691 Times in 4,638 Posts
    Groans
    745
    Groaned 2,437 Times in 2,262 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    Have We Had Enough of the Imperial Presidency Yet?

    Even a feeble president can impose his will on the nation if he lacks any sense of restraint or respect for political norms and guardrails.

    By Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer
    Mr. Kruse and Mr. Zelizer are the authors of “Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974.”

    For all his bluster, Donald Trump is generally seen by presidential observers as a shockingly weak president. Brought to office in an election in which he lost the popular vote, his approval ratings have remained consistently low. Even with his party in control of the White House and Congress for two years, beyond a typical Republican tax cut, Mr. Trump failed to secure a signature legislative accomplishment.

    The president may seem weak, but the presidency remains strong. Mr. Trump has illustrated that even a feeble commander in chief can impose his will on the nation if he lacks any sense of restraint or respect for political norms and guardrails.

    True, Mr. Trump has not been able to run roughshod over Congress or ignore the constraints of the federal courts. But he has been able to inflict extensive damage on our political institutions and public culture. He has used his power to aggravate, rather than calm, the fault lines that have divided our country.

    His “wall” government shutdown is the latest example of his misuse of executive power. To end this essentially pointless standoff of his own making, he is exploring the use of national emergency powers to build a wall Congress and a majority of the public don’t want.

    The Trump administration has provided a new example of an old concept: the “imperial presidency.” That term, famously used by the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1973 to describe the excesses and abuses of the Nixon White House, fell out of use almost as soon as President Richard Nixon fell from grace. The reckoning of Watergate and the first-ever resignation of a president seemed to show that the executive branch was not as uncontrollable as it had once seemed.

    Congress enacted a wide range of reforms that promised to restrain presidential power. The War Powers Act of 1973 created mechanisms to ensure that Congress authorized the deployment of American troops abroad. The Budget Reform of 1974 centralized the process used by the House and the Senate to make decisions about spending money so as to make the legislative branch more of an equal of the executive. The Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1974 established a system of public finance for presidential elections along with spending and contribution limits.

    The National Emergencies Act of 1976 authorized the president to initiate emergency powers of government, but with the condition that he or she specify the particular provisions in detail.

    (This is the authority President Trump has reportedly explored as a way of funding his wall.) Intelligence reforms imposed limits on the C.I.A. and F.B.I., whose surveillance and national security operations had greatly enhanced the president’s power.

    Last but not least, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 sought to watch against a replay of Watergate by establishing the Office of the Independent Counsel to ensure that there would be independent investigations into executive branch corruption.

    Despite these reforms, four decades later, the “imperial presidency” still seems to be alive and well. What went wrong?

    The most familiar challenge stems from the fact that in the midst of national security crises, much of the nation remains willing to allow presidents to respond to its perceived enemies. Despite the War Powers Act and the larger lessons of Vietnam, Congress has continued to allow presidents to send troops into combat without a formal declaration of war.

    In response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Congress passed legislation authorizing a vast expansion of the national security system that gave President George W. Bush and his successors access to new organizations, programs and institutions through which to pursue national security goals without congressional support.

    Since the 1970s, Democrats and Republicans have sorted themselves by party, with less room for internal dissent and less of a will to criticize or challenge a president from one’s own party. Both parties have been willing to grant the president more authority when it served their purpose.

    The main dynamic for Democrats has centered around party leaders supporting presidents who use executive action, through regulatory orders and rule making, to deal with urgent policy problems that congressional Republicans oppose.

    Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton turned to executive power to deal with energy and climate change when Congress refused to do so. President Barack Obama did the same on immigration after congressional obstruction prevented compromise legislation from passing.



    continued

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/o...wall-weak.html
    I am extremely happy. More because your aren’t

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to I Love America For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-18-2019)

  14. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    35,145
    Thanks
    154
    Thanked 4,139 Times in 3,767 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 371 Times in 360 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    You mean this:

    Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton turned to executive power to deal with energy and climate change when Congress refused to do so.

    President Barack Obama did the same on immigration after congressional obstruction prevented compromise legislation from passing.
    Congress didn't refuse to do anything. They weren't doing what Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama wanted or in the way they wanted. No is an answer whether you like it or not.

  15. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,386
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 375 Times in 301 Posts
    Groans
    24
    Groaned 50 Times in 47 Posts

    Default

    Op ..... Obama is gone .

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Loving91390 For This Post:

    rjhenn (01-12-2019), Truth Detector (01-18-2019)

  17. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    23,293
    Thanks
    7,936
    Thanked 10,135 Times in 5,083 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 549 Times in 523 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    I don't remember a single D upset over Mr. "I have a pen and a phone" Obama, the Imperial President.
    That is because Obama was very judicious in use of Executive Orders, and by presidential standards, issued relatively few Executive Orders - substantially fewer than Saint Raygun, Bill Clinton, and George Dumbya.


  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    christiefan915 (01-12-2019), kudzu (01-12-2019), ThatOwlWoman (01-12-2019)

  19. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    42,099
    Thanks
    53,385
    Thanked 22,893 Times in 15,179 Posts
    Groans
    1,652
    Groaned 1,811 Times in 1,720 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzalcoatl View Post
    No, you haven't. You just don't like the imperial powers being used for things you don't want. You had no problem with it for the past 2 (D) presidents and will be chomping at the bit for the next (D) to expand the powers even further.
    You’re right, it is selective. I have no problem admitting it. I agreed with DACA because I felt it was vital that these people quit being deported to a country that they hadn’t lived in for the better part of their lives. The majority of them were honest tax paying contributors to our society.
    That’s why I’m so screwed up, because I had a father who pushed me so hard,” Trump acknowledged in 2007, in a brief and rare moment of self-awareness.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Phantasmal For This Post:

    christiefan915 (01-12-2019), kudzu (01-12-2019)

  21. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,368
    Thanks
    9,455
    Thanked 8,666 Times in 5,941 Posts
    Groans
    102
    Groaned 548 Times in 540 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    That is because Obama was very judicious in use of Executive Orders, and by presidential standards, issued relatively few Executive Orders - substantially fewer than Saint Raygun, Bill Clinton, and George Dumbya.

    Facts are facts.

    Mr. Trump has illustrated that even a feeble commander in chief can impose his will on the nation if he lacks any sense of restraint or respect for political norms and guardrails.

    True, Mr. Trump has not been able to run roughshod over Congress or ignore the constraints of the federal courts. But he has been able to inflict extensive damage on our political institutions and public culture. He has used his power to aggravate, rather than calm, the fault lines that have divided our country.
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kudzu For This Post:

    Cypress (01-12-2019), rjhenn (01-12-2019), ThatOwlWoman (01-12-2019)

  23. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    11,407
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 5,428 Times in 3,407 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 397 Times in 378 Posts

    Default

    Some of the above Trumpkins complaints are legitimate, but just as they have with done with deficits, debt, and spending, they've forgotten that a major tenet of conservatism is a limited if not weak Executive Branch, especially as it applies to checks and balances, lessening Federal power, and the Constitution.

    Not Democrat principles, Republican, least according to what they have been telling anyone who would listen for the last six decades

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to archives For This Post:

    kudzu (01-12-2019), rjhenn (01-12-2019), ThatOwlWoman (01-12-2019)

  25. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    28,612
    Thanks
    11,538
    Thanked 9,345 Times in 6,368 Posts
    Groans
    641
    Groaned 739 Times in 688 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    You’re right, it is selective. I have no problem admitting it. I agreed with DACA because I felt it was vital that these people quit being deported to a country that they hadn’t lived in for the better part of their lives. The majority of them were honest tax paying contributors to our society.
    The problem lies in the fact that power, once gained, is never ceded. Any excuse of a crisis here or unique circumstances there simply encourages more of the same down the road. Undermining the seperation of powers and self restraint of power in the name of expediency erodes away the bedrock of our government and its principles.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Quetzalcoatl For This Post:

    Phantasmal (01-12-2019), rjhenn (01-12-2019), ThatOwlWoman (01-12-2019), Truth Detector (01-18-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Remembering Obama's imperial presidency
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2018, 07:15 PM
  2. More on the Imperial President....
    By NOVA in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-26-2014, 08:34 PM
  3. Beer Review: Sam Adams Imperial Wee Heavy
    By Quetzalcoatl in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2012, 10:42 PM
  4. Why is the US still using imperial measures?
    By Havana Moon in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-01-2012, 01:44 AM
  5. Why is the UK still using Imperial government?
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2011, 03:54 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •