Senate GOP ponders ceding power to President Obama

Interesting that this didn't make the rounds on ATS. More interesting was that it was "news" until the Woodward stories broke. I am not normally one for conspiracies of this type but the correlation of the two, doesn't strike me odd. Considering how both sides have been acting. That said, here is an excerpt of the story:

Days before the March 1 deadline, Senate Republicans are circulating a draft bill that would cancel $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts and instead turn over authority to President Barack Obama to achieve the same level of savings under a plan to be filed by March 8.

Read more here: Senate GOP ponders ceding powers...

I can pontificate on the story if you want, but the crux of it all is more a Constitutional one. Does one branch, separated via the Constitution, have the authority to grant another branch, powers enumerated to them?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I imagine that things might be so damned bad (that we don't know about) that pols are abdicating their responsibilities.

(posted because I want to keep an eye on this thread)

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I'm going to say NO.. They do not. I wonder how many citizens may file in Federal Court the moment something like this happens for real? As I see it, every legal U.S. citizen has standing as direct electors of their respective 2 Senators coupled with the impact this move would carry in the lives of every American. This court is also NOT friendly to Obama cases. Not much at all. This could be interesting.

Of course Obama could veto the bill.

The point of this game is place the onus of cuts on the President because he is running around the country exclaiming, 'It's not me! It's the Congress. I'm a good boy. I'm your friend. I don't want to hurt you. It's them! It's all them! I swear!'

This would all go a little easier if Obama simply let the ship sink in a dignified silence, rather than act like a petulant child trying to tell mom [the voters] that somebody [Congress] else broke the lamp.

So by saying, 'Fine! You figure it out smart guy!' the bill is forcing Obama to put up or shut up.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I'm going to say NO.. They do not. I wonder how many citizens may file in Federal Court the moment something like this happens for real? As I see it, every legal U.S. citizen has standing as direct electors of their respective 2 Senators coupled with the impact this move would carry in the lives of every American. This court is also NOT friendly to Obama cases. Not much at all. This could be interesting.

If that is the case, why weren't there a multitude of filings when they created the extra-congress (super congress)? That was outside the enumerated authority, yet they did and while it never came to fruition, that legislation still lives and could be evoked. Granting 12 members the ability to unilaterally dictate the purse of the Government is just as bad as abdicating that same purse to one man in my opinion.

Since they've gotten themselves into such a mess and there is absolutely no way out of it, maybe they're just trying to make sure they don't get blamed for the crash (which might make them targets of the revolutionaries).

If those senators decide to abrogate their constitutional responsibilities and cede them to the president then they should immediately be removed from office for reneging on their oaths to uphold the constitution, and they dang sure shouldn`t be collecting anymore pay checks.
I don`t believe the constitution gives them the authority to designate someone else to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.

reply to post by Tardacus


It doesn't work the way you think it does (or as the OP title suggests). The Budget Control Act came up with some cuts that are going to happen if Congress can't come up with a constrained budget (the President has to sign it into law).

Now everybody is acting all butt-hurt about the cuts. Obama is in campaign mode trying to blame the Congress when this whole thing has arisen out of the BCA and it shouldn't come as a surprise.

So the Bill will have the President come up with the cuts and then a budget will be passed by the Congress in accordance with the Constitution. This process isn't too disimilar from the existing Presidential Budget Request which has existed since 1921.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I would completely agree in spirit that there is little difference for abdicating authority. That was an incredible move to have made at the time. The difference, I think, is it remained in Congress and was still made up of members of Congress. Whether it was true or not, I think it was assumed that if anything got silly or out of hand about it, Congress could also act as a larger whole and settle the problem. So...why file and endure all that would go along with it?

That all changes, in my opinion, if the power moves clear out of Congress and out of the Legislative Branch as a Constitutional entity, to be taken by the Executive branch.

The Constitution is very specific in where and how budget matters are to be addressed. The 12 member nonsense violated that ...but it didn't outright snap the separation of powers. That makes all the difference here.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


This proposal has a veto claus in it. Congress has until March 28th to kill the President's request, but still retains this whole sword-of-Damocles aspect of it.

So no, they aren't just letting the President free wheel it.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
So the Bill will have the President come up with the cuts and then a budget will be passed by the Congress in accordance with the Constitution. This process isn't too disimilar from the existing Presidential Budget Request which has existed since 1921.

The bill would require a negative vote; meaning Congress would have to act against the President if they did not agree with the cuts/spending. This is wholly contrary to Constitutional government. The Executive has no say in how the money is spent or raised. He is only to execute faithfully the laws of the United States in manners such as these.

Proposing cuts and debating them is one thing; this bill does the opposite. It levies all responsibility to the Executive to engage in those cuts and only if Congress disagrees, (and can overcome a veto) will they be able to stop the Executive in exacting the purse.

Thought I will admit, this is based on the reporting as I haven't seen the circulating language of the bill. I would love to and would gladly eat my above words if that is the case.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


No, it's not. They all agreed to make some cuts when they passed the BCA. This puts where the cuts would be in the hands of the President. No budget or continuing resolution has been passed, so it's up to Congress to fund the whole damn thing less the cuts.

Obama could make all the cuts they want and Congress could say "F' it! We're going fishing! Government sucks." and effectively defund everything.

The end state is the money still goes through the Congressional hands.

The only thing they're giving Obama is the decision on what we're not going eat.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
No, it's not. They all agreed to make some cuts when they passed the BCA. This puts where the cuts would be in the hands of the President. No budget or continuing resolution has been passed, so it's up to Congress to fund the whole damn thing less the cuts.

Your speculation on the effect is as good as mine since the bill wasn't made public. We both can only rely upon reports and what we know of Constitutional government.

From the report:

As proposed, lawmakers would retain the power to overturn the president’s spending plan by March 22, but only under a resolution of disapproval that would demand two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate to prevail over an Obama veto.

Until then, we both can guess what is means, but looking at the proposed bills in the Senate, such a bill doesn't show; meaning it is thrown around committee and pitched to the media to get public response.

Gee... Where have we heard all this language before? I knew it sounded familiar......I just had to think a bit to place it. It has been a couple months, after all. There are reasons people simply do NOT trust Obama. He's done it to himself and by his own actions ..or omission of action, as the case has been.

Under the White House proposal, the president would have the power to raise the debt limit as needed.

Congress currently must pass legislation to hike the limit, but under Obama’s proposal lawmakers would only be able to pass a resolution disapproving of a debt limit increase by the president.

The president also would have the power to veto any resolution of disapproval, meaning two-thirds of Congress would have to disapprove of such an increase to block it.

Source: Obama’s debt-ceiling proposal would ease concerns on Wall Street

Same tune, different dance. This is getting a bit old. The President has the prerogative to SUGGEST something to Congress as it relates to the formation of a budget. That thing Congress hasn't even passed, against the U.S. Constitution outright, in over 4 years now.

He's beyond suggesting and simply taking liberties as much as Congress will allow and we have absolute wimps in Congress. That is why the Constitution was written SO clearly and specifically for the separation of powers. In case a day like this came for one branch being weak to another being strong, IMO.

This Senate and Congress is making us the laughing stock of the world. Imagine what the Russians and Chinese are thinking about what is going down in our government. What a /facepalm!!! It sounds like the Senate is wishing to "pass the buck" literally. Is our representatives that incompetent? Can the states do anything about this? I don't know. This country is spiralling into an unflushed toilet.