Longest Serving Dem Senator Slams Obama over Power Grab

[KingCondanomation]

Nice to see there is a Dem out there who gives a rats ass about the Constitution.

"The longest serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations/. "
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

 

[Bonestorm]

What's next? "Dem Gov. May Reject Stimulus Aid?"

If we wanted to read Drudge we would read Drudge.

 

[uscitizen]

how did Byrds state vote in the last election?

Boring stuff Damo, this is even beneath me.

 

[Damocles]

how did Byrds state vote in the last election?

Boring stuff Damo, this is even beneath me.

That wasn't me. But it really isn't all that boring anyway, and since when was politico.com "Drudge"?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What's next? "Dem Gov. May Reject Stimulus Aid?"

If we wanted to read Drudge we would read Drudge.

1) It was politico.com.... not Drudge

2) By your standards then no one should post any articles or links to any site, because 'if we wanted to read them... we would'

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1) It was politico.com.... not Drudge

2) By your standards then no one should post any articles or links to any site, because 'if we wanted to read them... we would'

basically, that's what he's saying. that only left wing biased articles are valid and that right wing news articles are to be disregarded because he doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) It was politico.com.... not Drudge

2) By your standards then no one should post any articles or links to any site, because 'if we wanted to read them... we would'

1) It's from Drudge. Trust me. Drudge linked to Politico. This is all that Damo does. He posts the stuff he reads on Drudge.

2) I don't mind using articles posted on Drudge as a jumping off point for a discussion, but Dano just posts the stuff that Drudge links to with little to no commentary at all.

 

[uscitizen]

sorry for the typo Damo it was not intentional.
You did know who I meant though.

 

[Damocles]

1) It's from Drudge. Trust me. Drudge linked to Politico. This is all that Damo does. He posts the stuff he reads on Drudge.

2) I don't mind using articles posted on Drudge as a jumping off point for a discussion, but Dano just posts the stuff that Drudge links to with little to no commentary at all.

I didn't post this.

What is it with people today?

1. I don't read Drudge.
2. I didn't post this.
3. politico.com is not Drudge.

 

[DamnYankee]

Byrd's true racist past is showing its ugly head again. He used the blacks to obtain and remain in power for many years and now they figured out how to finally use their vote to put in on of their own.

 

[DamnYankee]

I didn't post this.

What is it with people today?

1. I don't read Drudge.
2. I didn't post this.
3. politico.com is not Drudge.

I guess Dungheap isn't as trustworthy as he claims to be. Imagine that?

 

[Bonestorm]

I didn't post this.

What is it with people today?

1. I don't read Drudge.
2. I didn't post this.
3. politico.com is not Drudge.

Sorry for the m-n mistype. For the record the top two headlines on Drudge right now are:

1) Longest serving Dem senator slams Obama...Byrd warns of power grab

and

2) VIDEO: Biden Forgets Name of RECOVERY.GOV: 'Do You Know The Website Number?'


Dano's last two threads were titled:

1) Longest Serving Dem Senator Slams Obama Over Power Grab

and

2) LOL, Biden so Senile and Moronic Thinks Websites Have Numbers.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) It's from Drudge. Trust me. Drudge linked to Politico. This is all that Damo does. He posts the stuff he reads on Drudge.

2) I don't mind using articles posted on Drudge as a jumping off point for a discussion, but Dano just posts the stuff that Drudge links to with little to no commentary at all.

1) Its from Politico. If Drudge also linked to it, it is still from Politico. Trust me. The URL says politico.com.

2) Then why could you not discuss this article. You could easily have discussed the article which may or may not have prompted further discussion. But instead you went after the source of the article (which you named incorrectly) and attacked Dano (though you said Damo) for posting it.

3) I would love to see you attack those that enjoy posting from commondreams, huff post, move on etc.... for posting threads from those sites so often.

 

[Damocles]

I would ask, is the story accurate? Did Byrd indeed warn of this?

All Drudge ever does is link to other people's stories and occasionally post a rumor that he heard himself (Like Kerry and that girl who refused to corroborate, in fact said it was fake or like Clinton and Monica, that one turned out to be true.)

I can't see why it being a headline on Drudge should be important to you. It's a news story at politico.com and it accurately describes what happened. You wish to dismiss it because you don't want people looking further at it for some reason. What is it that makes this story so important to dismiss for you?

 

[Bonestorm]

1) Its from Politico. If Drudge also linked to it, it is still from Politico. Trust me. The URL says politico.com.

2) Then why could you not discuss this article. You could easily have discussed the article which may or may not have prompted further discussion. But instead you went after the source of the article (which you named incorrectly) and attacked Dano (though you said Damo) for posting it.

3) I would love to see you attack those that enjoy posting from commondreams, huff post, move on etc.... for posting threads from those sites so often.

1) I understand that Dano provided a quote from the Politico article, but he copied the Drudge headline practically verbatim and his last two posts are two of the top two stories on Drudge. He does this all the time.

2) I don't care about the article? Why didn't Dano talk about the article. He offers nothing.

3) I'm not attacking the source. I'm just saying that posting articles that are on Drudge without much commentary at all is stupid. If I wanted that I would go to Drudge. Dano should just start five threads of www.drudgereport.com.

 

[meme]

Never thought I'd agree with Senator Byrd on anything, but good for him..
Now we need more Democrats to stand up..

it's getting really creepy with all these "Czars" we are starting to hear about.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Nice to see there is a Dem out there who gives a rats ass about the Constitution.

"The longest serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations/. "
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

"Separation of powers" and "checks and balances" are terms never once used in the constitution. It's a completely modern concept. The president can do what he wants, but the legislature doesn't have to listen. The fact that the legislature is controlled by allies makes it likely they will, however.

 

[charver]

it's getting really creepy with all these "Czars" we are starting to hear about.

Hmmm, right-wingers and Bolsheviks marching in lock step?

Is this the end of days?

 

[Damocles]

"Separation of powers" and "checks and balances" are terms never once used in the constitution. It's a completely modern concept. The president can do what he wants, but the legislature doesn't have to listen. The fact that the legislature is controlled by allies makes it likely they will, however.

You really need to read the Federalist Papers. It is most definitely NOT a solely "modern concept". Geez. Even the Romans based their government on it, before it was corrupted it worked well.

 

[meme]

Hmmm, right-wingers and Bolsheviks marching in lock step?

Is this the end of days?