A co-equal Presidency.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
I complained when Bush made attempts to increase the powers of the Presidency and its area of control, and if you look at history its been the goal of every modern president. But, is it what's best for America and is it Constitutional?

There are many examples one of the more recent and controversial of them was when Congress gave GWB the power to conduct war in Iraq. They simply gave away there authority to declare war in a blanket fashion to an over zealous commander in chief. There are countless other examples that are less glaring but include budget negotiations and Congressional Agenda setting. Im not so sure that such a big and powerful presidency is what the Founders intended, what the Constitution calls for and what is best for America.

This leads me to something I believe President Obama has done, intentionally but not overtly. President Obama has shrunk the size and power of the Presidency, he has been attacked for it, Congress and opponents have called it a failure to lead. Where was the praise from the strict Constructionists for President Obama when he determined that he should go to Congress for approval to strike Syria? Reagan struck Libya without such approval!

Now it comes to the current debt limit and CR issues in Congress. Is it really the President's place to be negotiating? Sure it is at some level, when it comes to his veto power, but that does not come into play until Congress comes to some agreement on a bill. At this point it seems to me Congress should be negotiating maybe with an eye toward what the president will veto or not, but not with his active engagement.

Intentionally or not, President Obama has shrunk the power and size of the Presidency and I think its a good thing.

Thoughts?
 
How has he shrunk presidental power? By not convincing congress to give him his war? By shitting on the constitution several times? By revving up tge NSA and declaring drone strikes against Americans when they are declared security threats? There is some evidence some of what he does he does to spite his political.opponents only.

I think he's charismatic and capable of planning ahead but a poor negotiator, hence his congressional failings.
 
Dionaea said:
How has he shrunk presidental power? By not convincing congress to give him his war? By shitting on the constitution several times? By revving up tge NSA and declaring drone strikes against Americans when they are declared security threats? There is some evidence some of what he does he does to spite his political.opponents only.

I think he's charismatic and capable of planning ahead but a poor negotiator, hence his congressional failings.
Click to expand...


document all these claims with facts
 
Dionaea said:
How has he shrunk presidental power? By not convincing congress to give him his war? By shitting on the constitution several times? By revving up tge NSA and declaring drone strikes against Americans when they are declared security threats? There is some evidence some of what he does he does to spite his political.opponents only.
Click to expand...

The most glaring example is when he decided to ask Congress for approval in Syria. There are others where he has been attacked for not leading... like his current and past refusal to negotiate on the budget/debt issues. Let them sort it out and then he will take whatever action he deems appropriate. They call him aloof but maybe its his job to be a bit detached.
 
Jarod said:
I complained when Bush made attempts to increase the powers of the Presidency and its area of control, and if you look at history its been the goal of every modern president. But, is it what's best for America and is it Constitutional?

There are many examples one of the more recent and controversial of them was when Congress gave GWB the power to conduct war in Iraq. They simply gave away there authority to declare war in a blanket fashion to an over zealous commander in chief. There are countless other examples that are less glaring but include budget negotiations and Congressional Agenda setting. Im not so sure that such a big and powerful presidency is what the Founders intended, what the Constitution calls for and what is best for America.

This leads me to something I believe President Obama has done, intentionally but not overtly. President Obama has shrunk the size and power of the Presidency, he has been attacked for it, Congress and opponents have called it a failure to lead. Where was the praise from the strict Constructionists for President Obama when he determined that he should go to Congress for approval to strike Syria? Reagan struck Libya without such approval!

Now it comes to the current debt limit and CR issues in Congress. Is it really the President's place to be negotiating? Sure it is at some level, when it comes to his veto power, but that does not come into play until Congress comes to some agreement on a bill. At this point it seems to me Congress should be negotiating maybe with an eye toward what the president will veto or not, but not with his active engagement.

Intentionally or not, President Obama has shrunk the power and size of the Presidency and I think its a good thing.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


all through history when the president has told congress " don't put this in the bill or its a guaranteed veto from me" the congress has believed him and then tried to write and pass something the president will sign.


The republican party knew long ago the president would NEVER sign this bill and only did this because they needed to please the insane racist base that now calls all the shots in the republican party.


It was nothing but a stunt to waste the United States Of Americans time and money.

they hate this country.


Its time they are treated like the traitors they are
 
Dionaea said:
How has he shrunk presidental power? By not convincing congress to give him his war? By shitting on the constitution several times? By revving up tge NSA and declaring drone strikes against Americans when they are declared security threats? There is some evidence some of what he does he does to spite his political.opponents only.

I think he's charismatic and capable of planning ahead but a poor negotiator, hence his congressional failings.
Click to expand...


still waiting for proof of all these idiot claims
 
Jarod said:
The most glaring example is when he decided to ask Congress for approval in Syria. There are others where he has been attacked for not leading... like his current and past refusal to negotiate on the budget/debt issues. Let them sort it out and then he will take whatever action he deems appropriate. They call him aloof but maybe its his job to be a bit detached.
Click to expand...

I think hes willing to let the moderates of the right fold and grant him what he wants. Both sides have called for negotiations before. The repubs even talked about offering up a one year delay on ACA as a compromise. I think both sides are playing for keeps.
 
evince said:
document all these claims with facts
Click to expand...

Here is a fact for you.

Did the ACA law that Obummer signed include waivers for businesses, unions and Congress? Did the law he signed include a one year delay in implementation?

Where did he get the authority to do those things? I await your spin
 
evince said:
all through history when the president has told congress " don't put this in the bill or its a guaranteed veto from me" the congress has believed him and then tried to write and pass something the president will sign.


The republican party knew long ago the president would NEVER sign this bill and only did this because they needed to please the insane racist base that now calls all the shots in the republican party.


It was nothing but a stunt to waste the United States Of Americans time and money.

they hate this country.


Its time they are treated like the traitors they are
Click to expand...

The system is working exactly as the Founders created. Why do you hate the Constitution?

You think Obummer should get his way. Why?
 
Jarod said:
I complained when Bush made attempts to increase the powers of the Presidency and its area of control, and if you look at history its been the goal of every modern president. But, is it what's best for America and is it Constitutional?

There are many examples one of the more recent and controversial of them was when Congress gave GWB the power to conduct war in Iraq. They simply gave away there authority to declare war in a blanket fashion to an over zealous commander in chief. There are countless other examples that are less glaring but include budget negotiations and Congressional Agenda setting. Im not so sure that such a big and powerful presidency is what the Founders intended, what the Constitution calls for and what is best for America.

This leads me to something I believe President Obama has done, intentionally but not overtly. President Obama has shrunk the size and power of the Presidency, he has been attacked for it, Congress and opponents have called it a failure to lead. Where was the praise from the strict Constructionists for President Obama when he determined that he should go to Congress for approval to strike Syria? Reagan struck Libya without such approval!

Now it comes to the current debt limit and CR issues in Congress. Is it really the President's place to be negotiating? Sure it is at some level, when it comes to his veto power, but that does not come into play until Congress comes to some agreement on a bill. At this point it seems to me Congress should be negotiating maybe with an eye toward what the president will veto or not, but not with his active engagement.

Intentionally or not, President Obama has shrunk the power and size of the Presidency and I think its a good thing.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

You have got to be the most gullible kool-aid swilling Obama appologist I have ever seen.

Obama hasn't shrunk the Government; he has super expanded it and his Obamacare is the most far reaching unconstitutional Government grab since Social Security (oxymoron in the extreme).

What you are witnessing is not a President shrinking the Presidency, but a buffoon who can't lead because he has never led anything in his life. His only experience, community organizing, is illustrated by the fact that this hyper partisan asshat is on permanent campaign mode. His juvenile arrogance is epitomized by his clumsy buffoonish efforts to get Congress to authorize his misguided Syria "red line" machismo which he then ran away from claiming it wasn't his. Just like his buffoonish efforts to ascribe the failure of his massive $850 billion spending foray to Republicans. Just like his failure to be honest about deaths in Benghazi and ascribe it to a nondescript video by an American.

This embarrassment of a President actually dupes gullible buffoons like you into believing that the most powerful man in the world is completely helpless and incapable of doing anything and paralyzed by a minority party in the house. How incredibly stupid does one have to be to fall for such incredibly stupid claims and moronic rhetoric?
 
Truth Detector said:
You have got to be the most gullible kool-aid swilling Obama appologist I have ever seen.

Obama hasn't shrunk the Government; he has super expanded it and his Obamacare is the most far reaching unconstitutional Government grab since Social Security (oxymoron in the extreme).

What you are witnessing is not a President shrinking the Presidency, but a buffoon who can't lead because he has never led anything in his life. His only experience, community organizing, is illustrated by the fact that this hyper partisan asshat is on permanent campaign mode. His juvenile arrogance is epitomized by his clumsy buffoonish efforts to get Congress to authorize his misguided Syria "red line" machismo which he then ran away from claiming it wasn't his. Just like his buffoonish efforts to ascribe the failure of his massive $850 billion spending foray to Republicans. Just like his failure to be honest about deaths in Benghazi and ascribe it to a nondescript video by an American.

This embarrassment of a President actually dupes gullible buffoons like you into believing that the most powerful man in the world is completely helpless and incapable of doing anything and paralyzed by a minority party in the house. How incredibly stupid does one have to be to fall for such incredibly stupid claims and moronic rhetoric?
Click to expand...

I never said he shrank the government you idiot, no wonder you hate President Obama so much, you cant comprehend a simple discussion about presidential power.
 
Jarod said:
I never said he shrank the government you idiot, no wonder you hate President Obama so much, you cant comprehend a simple discussion about presidential power.
Click to expand...

Substitute "Presidency" for "Government" dumbass and the post is just as relevant.

Deflect much?
 
You have got to be the most gullible kool-aid swilling Obama appologist I have ever seen.

Obama hasn't shrunk the Presidency; he has super expanded it and his Obamacare is the most far reaching unconstitutional Government grab since Social Security (oxymoron in the extreme).

What you are witnessing is not a President shrinking the Presidency, but a buffoon who can't lead because he has never led anything in his life. His only experience, community organizing, is illustrated by the fact that this hyper partisan asshat is on permanent campaign mode. His juvenile arrogance is epitomized by his clumsy buffoonish efforts to get Congress to authorize his misguided Syria "red line" machismo which he then ran away from claiming it wasn't his. Just like his buffoonish efforts to ascribe the failure of his massive $850 billion spending foray to Republicans. Just like his failure to be honest about deaths in Benghazi and ascribe it to a nondescript video by an American.

This embarrassment of a President actually dupes gullible buffoons like you into believing that the most powerful man in the world is completely helpless and incapable of doing anything and paralyzed by a minority party in the house. How incredibly stupid does one have to be to fall for such incredibly stupid claims and moronic rhetoric?
 
Truth Detector said:
You have got to be the most gullible kool-aid swilling Obama appologist I have ever seen.

Obama hasn't shrunk the Presidency; he has super expanded it and his Obamacare is the most far reaching unconstitutional Government grab since Social Security (oxymoron in the extreme).

What you are witnessing is not a President shrinking the Presidency, but a buffoon who can't lead because he has never led anything in his life. His only experience, community organizing, is illustrated by the fact that this hyper partisan asshat is on permanent campaign mode. His juvenile arrogance is epitomized by his clumsy buffoonish efforts to get Congress to authorize his misguided Syria "red line" machismo which he then ran away from claiming it wasn't his. Just like his buffoonish efforts to ascribe the failure of his massive $850 billion spending foray to Republicans. Just like his failure to be honest about deaths in Benghazi and ascribe it to a nondescript video by an American.

This embarrassment of a President actually dupes gullible buffoons like you into believing that the most powerful man in the world is completely helpless and incapable of doing anything and paralyzed by a minority party in the house. How incredibly stupid does one have to be to fall for such incredibly stupid claims and moronic rhetoric?
Click to expand...

If I was interested in playing with this, you would need a few more edits to make it coherent, but Ill pass for now.
 
Jarod said:
I complained when Bush made attempts to increase the powers of the Presidency and its area of control, and if you look at history its been the goal of every modern president. But, is it what's best for America and is it Constitutional?

There are many examples one of the more recent and controversial of them was when Congress gave GWB the power to conduct war in Iraq. They simply gave away there authority to declare war in a blanket fashion to an over zealous commander in chief. There are countless other examples that are less glaring but include budget negotiations and Congressional Agenda setting. Im not so sure that such a big and powerful presidency is what the Founders intended, what the Constitution calls for and what is best for America.

This leads me to something I believe President Obama has done, intentionally but not overtly. President Obama has shrunk the size and power of the Presidency, he has been attacked for it, Congress and opponents have called it a failure to lead. Where was the praise from the strict Constructionists for President Obama when he determined that he should go to Congress for approval to strike Syria? Reagan struck Libya without such approval!

Now it comes to the current debt limit and CR issues in Congress. Is it really the President's place to be negotiating? Sure it is at some level, when it comes to his veto power, but that does not come into play until Congress comes to some agreement on a bill. At this point it seems to me Congress should be negotiating maybe with an eye toward what the president will veto or not, but not with his active engagement.

Intentionally or not, President Obama has shrunk the power and size of the Presidency and I think its a good thing.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO....
 
Jarod said:
I complained when Bush made attempts to increase the powers of the Presidency and its area of control, and if you look at history its been the goal of every modern president. But, is it what's best for America and is it Constitutional?

There are many examples one of the more recent and controversial of them was when Congress gave GWB the power to conduct war in Iraq. They simply gave away there authority to declare war in a blanket fashion to an over zealous commander in chief. There are countless other examples that are less glaring but include budget negotiations and Congressional Agenda setting. Im not so sure that such a big and powerful presidency is what the Founders intended, what the Constitution calls for and what is best for America.

This leads me to something I believe President Obama has done, intentionally but not overtly. President Obama has shrunk the size and power of the Presidency, he has been attacked for it, Congress and opponents have called it a failure to lead. Where was the praise from the strict Constructionists for President Obama when he determined that he should go to Congress for approval to strike Syria? Reagan struck Libya without such approval!

Now it comes to the current debt limit and CR issues in Congress. Is it really the President's place to be negotiating? Sure it is at some level, when it comes to his veto power, but that does not come into play until Congress comes to some agreement on a bill. At this point it seems to me Congress should be negotiating maybe with an eye toward what the president will veto or not, but not with his active engagement.

Intentionally or not, President Obama has shrunk the power and size of the Presidency and I think its a good thing.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
are you fucking kidding? seriously?????????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top