An honest question to those on the left.

reply to post by nwtrucker


You also have to consider the intent of executive orders. It would be interesting to be able to compare the intents behind the numerous executive orders signed by other presidents vs those Obama has signed.

I am aware that for quite some time it seems that each president has attempted to increase the powers of the executive branch. Kind of like a 2 year old continually pushing his boundaries.

reply to post by nwtrucker

Dear nwtrucker,

I truly admire your patience and diplomatic approach to the question you have raised. That alone should bring people together in an attempt to reach an understanding, if not a solution. Your point about "codes," and the Constitution is a good effort in that regard.

I'll step immediately into controversial territory, justified by my belief that a first step is required. Even if it's the wrong first step, at least we will learn what to avoid. I believe that the culture, the morality, of those living in America prior to the Constitution was primarily Judeo-Christian. (Yes, to those who object, I'm coldly leaving out the Indians and the Blacks, as they played a small part in forming our Constitution. Let's not get bogged down.)

Their religious heritage helped inform them of their duties to their Creator, and to their fellow man. (And again, to those who object, the claim that the Founders were not Christians or Jews is silly, but worse than that, it's irrelevant.) Religion, except in the case of Islam is not designed to govern a country. (Even Israel is not controlled by the Torah.) But the Founders had to find a way to govern the US.

They used what they had. The experiences of the Pilgrims, Christians, English, and Jews to reject Socialism. A strong desire to avoid both a Monarchy and a Democracy (although making Washington a King was briefly considered). And so on. They used the Greeks and Romans in considering our form of government, and it is my understanding is that the US is the oldest, currently existing, Republic.

Because of the high regard in which their religions and the Founders were held, God and the Constitution were seen as the necessary ingredients (in different spheres sometimes) to ensure the country stayed free, strong, and prosperous.

Now, what does that position face with which to find a compromise? It seems to me the other position declares that no religion can establish a useful morality. Indeed, there isn't one morality that should be adhered to by almost everyone, each should find their own morality. To the extent that anything is considered "moral," it is either an empty platitude such as "Be fair," or it is the result of the fashion among the people at the time. It may be "Be strong, or be gentle, give to the world's poor, or help the people at home first," depending on the mood at the time. So there is no morality except that which supports the position favored at the moment.

What about the Constitution then? Our President has told us that it is a "living document," which needs to be interpreted differently depending on the circumstances. He has also said that it shouldn't describe what government is not allowed to do, rather it should describe what government is required to do. And as the posters here have expressed, everyone one believes that recent presidents have violated the Constitution.

So, we have neither the Judeo-Christian heritage, nor the Constitution, to serve as fundamental basics to be relied upon. How will this group of people ever compromise with those who say that both are fundamental basics to be relied upon? I don't see it, as a matter of logic. It appears, although I'd love to be corrected that one view or the other must prevail. What is the result if we allow unconstitutional actions by the President (which will result in the dissolving away of the Constitution). And what will he have with no goals related to any phase of our founding and creation as a country? There is nothing good to be found following that path, unless one supports the dismantling of America, and the creation of some different country in it's place.

I would love to find the commonality you speak of but, before I can support it, I have to know that it exists.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles1952, as usual, you've articulated the problem far better than I.

As you say, that commonality no longer exists. Yet-assuming your "1952" is the year of your birth-we were around for the last vestiges of it. We experienced it. It wasn't restricted to smallish communities, or the occasional state, it was nation wide.

This generation, if not from one of the regions that have managed to hang onto that commonality, has no idea what we're talking about.

This current environment is their "norm", what they are used to and have nothing else to measure it against.

My 'risky" post cost me several hours where I couldn't even get back to this thread and was unflagged by one protestor. ( I don't post for flags/stars. I value the dialogue, not the attaboys.)

Part of the present "battle" has a similar make-up as the war of independence in that, apparently, only 2% of the population took part on the rebel's side. The rest were either loyalists themselves, indifferent to who ran the show or how, or flat out were too busy trying to survive, make food grow and survive the coming winter. Few had the luxury of time for the "big picture".

Today, we have an economic mess, huge unemployment and, as a result, little concern for the remaining commonality, the constitution. Indeed, it's the perfect time to supplant it! To marginalize it.

How? I will fix this for you. I will bypass this 'gridlock' with my pen and my phone and we will live happily forever more....

Brilliant! A well planned execution or an inevitable cycle of a nation? Beats me...

There is a new commonality, it is survival....money...self. As the old system/cow...(jobs) dries up a new one is being offered I.E. the government. Here's your cheque.

Brilliantly base. Almost a shoe-in to work.

Federalism is obsolete. Dissolve the Union. I, for one, don't want a second "War of Independence".

nwtrucker
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

 

More good posts!

Let throw a developing thought out and see if it sticks to the walls: compromise is the concept that keeps coming up.

We seem to lost that ability. There may be a more fundamental explanation to that loss.

Perhaps we've lost the "means" to compromise. The "tool", so to speak.

Undercutting the Constitution was good will, for the most part. Trust, at least to a higher degree. We had a moral code. It was, for all intents and purposes, the Judeo-Christian moral code. (I'm NOT talking the religion here, just the moral code).

Groups, families, almost all subscribed to it. Gave lip-service to it. Some even lived it!

That "code" is gone for a large portion of this nation, either due to it's source, Christianity and the marginalization or it, rightly or wrongly. We, for the most part, were European in origin. We were raised with that code, be it when still in Europe or by the following generations while on this side of the pond.

Those that haven't been educated into that code have found others to base their lives on.

I'm putting no right or wrong here, just posing a thought.

The next level of broad agreement was the Constitution. Despite the violations of it all the way back, it remains that the majority took comfort and believed in the value of that document.(A governmental moral code?).

We now see pretty well both "side" consider their view of things (senior?) to that document as well.

So what's left to agree on? Where is the means for that compromise? Does this make any sense at all or should I take my afternoon nap?....

edit on 12-2-2014 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

I'll briefly reply here...even though there wasn't really a need. I agree with you 100%! As much as some people don't want to hear this, it is REALITY. So don't yell and scream. I'm speaking facts and nothing else.

Fact: When America respected religion, went to church on sundays, had a mother and father in the house, etc...everything was better. When morals were important and parents taught them...life was better. When parents punished their children (or at least cared about how they were growing up)...life was better. When a "normal" life-style was the goal and praised by the majority...there were less problems. When one spouse could earn a living for the entire family...life was comfortable.

I could go on with that forever. The fact is...like it or not...until people decided that they are special and should be able to be whomever they want, and do whatever they want, and DEMAND others accept them...that is when things started going down hill. Sorry...IT IS A FACT! People don't take responsibility, parents don't teach it and everyone thinks they should be able to do whatever they want. Smoke pot, throw a gay parade just to stick it in others faces, million man marches, no bullying, no fighting in school, no active sports, no father, etc. Some of you demand we accept these things as "normal". Well...here we are. What used to be looked upon as the "problems" in society, we have been forced to call "normal" or acceptable.

Guess what? Our moral and therefore social standards are in the gutter. Literally. And when you lower the bar everytime someone wants to be considered "normal", even when they are not...you end up in the dump heap of what we are today. Sure...we haven't made pedofiles "normal" yet...but we are going in that direction.

Unless we, as a society, decide that there are things to aspire to, and other things to avoid...we will die. Sorry if this offends anyone...I really am. But it is a fact. You can not make everything acceptable, OK and "normal" and not end up in the trash. And our standards...our "normal" today sucks.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Thanks for the reply. No, I didn't read through the whole thread, but was purely responding to your original question.

As far as the Obama tweaking certain rules/portions of the ACA, I'd imagine that the precedent for such tweaks to laws has been set long ago. In fact the Eisenhower IRS chief made some rule regarding the tax code, which actually went against the law, which was established during Woodrow WIlson's administration. In particular, the rule was changed to give tax exempt status to groups the were primarily non-political, whereas the law states that tax exempt status is only for groups that are exclusively non-political. And yet I have yet to hear conservatives condemn Eisenhower for having been a Constitution-breaking tyrant -- but then again, he was a Republican and a Caucasian.

Honestly I am not in favor of the executive branch being able to enact rules that don't comport precisely with the written law. That said, reality is a messy thing, and sometimes the devils in the details need to be dealt with expediently, and this is generally a matter for the executive branch, which executes the laws of Congress.

For the record, I have problems with ACA as it is implemented and that Obama is changing the rules as he goes. But other presidents have done things by fiat too. Remember Richard Nixon's great price-fixing edict to control inflation and to help him win a second term? Nixon, however, did far worse things, including conducting illegal secret wars, and various forms of thuggery, including using government agencies for these purposes. He wasn't going to be impeached for Watergate alone, but for his abuse of power and the illegal secret wars he conducted. But again, I don't remember hearing conservatives hollering about impeaching him or calling him a tyrant.

Glad you're learning stuff in this thread, and that it has spawned some constructive and informative discussion. And thanks again for replying to my post.

Oh...one more thing. I parent my children and here is one example of how people today DON'T THINK. My daughter was going to a birthday party and needed/wanted to give a gift. She said..."I just want to give her money Dad, maybe $20?". I said no and that she had to buy a gift. Why?

Simply giving a $20 bill is a copout. You give the money, smile and you are done. Giving a gift involves thinking about the person receiving it, deciding what they would like, going out to the store and taking some time to pick the right thing, wrapping it up, giving it to the recipient, dealing with the possibility that they might not like it, if they don't like it...rethinking if you spent enough time deciding what to get, etc., etc., etc.

Those are lessons. Those are learning experiences that teach us things. Things like thinking of others and what others care about. Spending money wisely. Dealing with your choices and maybe rejection. LESSONS! If parents (and pretty much everyone else) realizes that life is a chess game and requires looking at what each little action will result in...we would make different choices. But again...that only applies if we give a crap about who we are, how we act and the consequences of our actions and inactions.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


That's how it always was done. A parent giving his child a lesson. Repeated everywhere.

Still being done, but perhaps not by enough or often enough.

Thanks for the input.

Obama is hardly the author of the idea of a living Constitution:

"In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention:

1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and

2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states."

Edmond Randolph, "Records of the Federal Convention" (to create the US Constitution)

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816

"Provisions of the Constitution of the United States are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form, but are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is not to be gathered simply from the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth."

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Gompers v. United States, 1914

An opposing Opinion:

I heartily disagree with a blanket statement that the "Good Ol Days' were always best.

Our question should always be there ... "best for whom?"

There is plenty of room in the human for both a strong personal identity and strong personal responsibility. The two contribute to each other, actually, rather than diminish each other. As well, the idea that strong individuals can only be created in the supposed traditional environment of One Mother One Father One Household is rubbish. There have always been broken households and single parent households. The concept of family is strong enough on its own and does not require the acceptance or special pleadings of religious fundamentalists. There are many kinds of families and many ways to structure them.

The idea that religion itself is an overwhelmingly positive factor in society is also fallacious. There are many proofs for this assertion which are off-topic here. There are many that are free of any belief in God, gods, spirits or whatever one's favorite fetish to shake is ... and are highly ethical beings. Ethics and morals arise from human society, not as dispensed from on high.

This is also not the place to reargue the idea that America was founded as a Christian Nation, or that all of the Founders were Christians in the way that we think of the word today. Google their own thoughts and words on the subject.

Executive Power that usurps the Constitution will be dealt with in the Judiciary. Our age is unparalleled in its love of political sensationalism.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Re not calling Nixon a tyrant isn't quite the same as Obama confirming the "warnings" by the right with his State of the Union address announcing his intentions to bypass congress with his "phone and pen" on multiple issues.

Clearly, there were a few "fixes" to the A.C.A. that crossed the line highlighted by the fix that "ordered" the states to violate the very law that was still on the books. Perhaps most of the fixes merely flirted with the line, but that Address removed all doubt from my mind as to his intentions....we shall see.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Your right on that point. BUT, he has been quoted that the Constitution was flawed that it didn't spell out the duties and responsibilities of the federal gov't to "take care of the people"...cough, cough. (paraphrased, of course).

I guess he didn't consult with those of us that don't want the federal gov't taking care of us...at least, beyond those stated in that "flawed" document.

reply to post by nwtrucker


This pattern transcends party. The left was irate about Bush's use of executive orders, signing statements, etc, and the right liked to remind them that during the first government shutdown Clinton threatened to run the country by executive order.

What happened was that both parties abandoned government to corporate masters and just gamed the democratic system for money by whipping up radicals for fights over issues they never intended to resolve until the radicals got wise and forced them to act more and more. This created a need to show progress in whatever direction the radicals demand while keeping us moving in the direction the corporate rulers dictate. Politics became a show and the real decisions making is no longer in the capitol building or white house.

The result is smash mouth politics- promise too much, face obstructionism as a result, circumvent the process, lawsuits ensue, and then the important decision always gets made behind closed doors by unelected lifetime appointees while most laws become contradictory and vague, effectively allowing anyone who can afford to influence the court to do anything they want and escape or delay correction under the law, while anyone who opposes power and can be accused under outdated or unclear laws and made to disappear in the system.

In the new America everyone buys and sells and does and shoots whatever whoever and whenever they want, and if anyone has a problem with that the two sides throw money and nonsense at eachother until one side runs out, and that's how we keep the economy running with no real laws or institutions.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Gryphon66, ouch! Opposing view? I'd have thought more like devil's advocate. LOL

Not one mention of moral codes or constitution in your post. Religion and Traditional families? The least inaccurate cubbyhole for the moral code of the day was Judeo-Christian.

The least worst familial system is the traditional one, the statistics on that are well known...Google it.

As far a selected quotes from the founding fathers go...no greater "out of context" act has ever been perpetrated than a quote or two out of a lifetime of Published/public utterances by the founding fathers. Not saying you, just saying.....

The point was the commonality of that code and of the Constitution greased the wheels of compromise.

The erosion of both may explain the lack of compromise.( although, the number on the right grows that feel their backs are to the wall and there's been too much compromise already...time to hold fast.)

As usual, a pleasure, sir...

reply to post by The Vagabond


wow! just wow!

I bow to your perception and eloquent presentation. I have to agree wholeheartedly.

reply to post by The Vagabond


I don't see anything in your reply that doesn't add up..I might add that the pendulum is swinging wider and wider.

Do you see ANY way this can be righted, even incrementally and still avoid collapse?

If not, is Federalism now obsolete?

Flatfish

For starters, it's not hard to spot your little injection of bias in this thread where you are apparently making a direct correlation between Obama's use of executive orders and constitutional violations. As such, I think you should expect some bias responses as well.

Or do you have knowledge of some SCOTUS rulings regarding Obama EOs inferring that he has violated the constitution? If so, I'd like to see them!

With respect to how I feel about Obama using executive orders to accomplish what little he can, well I'm a Obama supporter and I too have mixed feelings. Personally, I think it's a crying shame that it has even come to this, but it is what it is.

Furthermore, I'm not sure I'd do any different if I were faced with the most obstructionist Congress in american history. One that openly declared "compromise" to be a dirty word and stated their number one goal to be insuring that Obama was a one term POTUS. So much for priority number one being the business of the country.

There may well be some repercussions down the road but I don't see how it could be much worse than what we have right now. We currently have a Congress who thinks it's their business to make sure that no business is done and seeing how I'm a believer in the philosophy that one should "lead, follow or get the hell out of the way," IMO it's time they got the hell out of the way.

On the other hand, some good things have come about as the result of a POTUS decision to issue executive orders. Things like the Emancipation Proclamation and desegregation of the armed forces were both the result of EOs.

Just a couple of points I'd like to make.

1. SCOTUS has not ruled because no case regarding the EOs have been brought before, it my knowledge. SCOTUS can only issue rulings on cases on its docket, no case, no ruling.

2. It is very had for two sides to compromise when they are trying to pass legislation on issues where their fundamental beliefs are diametrically opposed. I bet you would find it difficult to find someone willing to compromise their core beliefs in order to "get something done".

3. The "obstructionist" legislative branch is trying to prevent what they see as a fundamental shift in policies by the executive branch. Our system of government was designed to allow this. This is to prevent any one branch from changing too much, too fast without the consent of the other branches. The whole idea is to prevent the "whims of times" to make sweeping changes. Our government was designed to be slow and methodical. In a lot of ways, it was designed for impasse. You want a clear majority when you are making changes that affect peoples lives as much as government can affect them.

These days our government by is run by public relations instead of by good policy. I can agree that public relations is important, but it pales in comparison with good policy.

4. The two EOs you mention were very important to the history of the country but they did not stray outside the powers of the President. They did not assume the powers of the legislative or judicial branches of government.

The Emancipation Proclimation did not "free the slaves". It only freed slaves held in territories in open rebellion against the United States of America. Believe it or not, there were still areas in the United States that were not in rebellion, that slavery was legal and practiced.

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

I have place in bold text the part of the statement where he declares his authority for issuing such a proclamation. It is is power as Commander-in-Chief in a time of war that gave him that power.

It is also the authority of Commander-in-Chief that gives the right to issue the second EO you mentioned, the desegregation of the Armed Forces of the United States.

These are both very important and historic documents, but the actions they took were well within the powers granted to the President by the Constitution. Some EOs issued in recent times appear to stray outside these Constitutional boundaries.

Other than that, I do agree with you that the original framing of the question invites a biased response.

Gryphon66
An opposing Opinion:


There is plenty of room in the human for both a strong personal identity and strong personal responsibility. The two contribute to each other, actually, rather than diminish each other. As well, the idea that strong individuals can only be created in the supposed traditional environment of One Mother One Father One Household is rubbish. There have always been broken households and single parent households. The concept of family is strong enough on its own and does not require the acceptance or special pleadings of religious fundamentalists. There are many kinds of families and many ways to structure them.

Rubbish eh? Rather broad statement, dont you think? I will be one of the first to admit that the traditional family structure is not, in and of itself, necessary to properly bring up children to be functioning and successful adults. However....(pregnant pause) there is no way that you can deny that when taken in large population samples it has been, and remains clear that, in general, the traditional family provides a much better starting platform for children to succeed in all that entails. Having been a parent, I tip my hat to all single parents who can keep it all together and provide the child/children the necessary resources and time as opposed to just turning them loose and letting them work it out themselves as so often is the case. Being a single parent, under any circumstances is difficult to say the least.

The idea that religion itself is an overwhelmingly positive factor in society is also fallacious. There are many proofs for this assertion which are off-topic here. There are many that are free of any belief in God, gods, spirits or whatever one's favorite fetish to shake is ... and are highly ethical beings. Ethics and morals arise from human society, not as dispensed from on high.

Not even going to discuss this one.... except to ask but one question, which is really not relevant, just mere curiosity: Do you have children? Again...lacking relevance, just throwing it out there. I have 2...the youngest just got her doctorate in Psych last year, the oldest served 6 years in the military and is married and now raising a family ... doing quite well. 2 was a hand full for me...and I wasn't a single parent either. Which is exactly why I have much respect for those single parents who are doing it right and well.

Executive Power that usurps the Constitution will be dealt with in the Judiciary. Our age is unparalleled in its love of political sensationalism.

Unless information gathered by the NSA is used to blackmail specific Supreme Court Justices.....

That may be a paranoid statement or maybe not....bottom line is the Executive branch has the military to support whatever play.... provided the military actually would support POTUS. When Generals were being canned right and left (and retired) a couple years back I was keeping an eye out in case that was the prelim to some radical move. Thankfully it was not...or at least so far... (see what I mean about paranoid? lol)

Are you saying that Obama has been quoted as saying "the Constitution was flawed that it didn't spell out the duties and responsibilities of the federal gov't to "take care of the people"? Where? When?

Oh, that's right, you don't do the Google, eh? Well let's see ... ah, here we go:

Limbaugh's assertion that Obama "rejected the Constitution" is false, as is clear from a clip from a September 6, 2001, interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ that Limbaugh aired later in the show. In fact, while saying that the Constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day," Obama asserted that the Constitution is "a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now."

In a preceding portion of the WBEZ program -- titled "Slavery and the Constitution" -- Obama explained that the "fundamental flaw" was that "[t]he Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers," and that the framers did not "see[] it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth." Without airing that part of the WBEZ program, in which Obama explained his position that the Constitution reflected the "fundamental flaw of this country," Limbaugh criticized Obama for saying that the Constitution reflected a "fundamental flaw," while falsely accusing Obama of saying the flaw cannot "be fixed."

Media Matters

And that's been percolated through the Right Wing Spin Machine since then ... if you have a different source for Mr. Obama's supposed "quote" please provide.

As the other post ... you've had several previous posters here (and you were congratulating them on their contribution to your thread) who were churning out the standard cant about traditional families, morals, Christian Nation, etc. I'm sorry you find my opposing response to that off-topic.

Quotes taken out of context? Really? So now we'd have to quote the entire corpus of a life's work to make a point?

I beg to differ in the quotes I chose:

The Randolph Quote: That quote is from the minutes of the Constitutional Convention. I'm not sure how one could possibly get a more RELEVANT quote about the Founders' attitude toward the document they were framing than their own words at the time they were framing it.

The Jefferson Quote: That was a direct response to a question put to Mr. Jefferson by Samuel Kercheval about the Constitution. It also happens to be one of the quotes chosen to be on the walls at the Jefferson Memorial.

The Holmes Quote: That is from a landmark case before the Supreme Court. Justice Holmes was writing the majority opinion. One of the matters of the case was directly related to applying Constitutional law to the decisions of a lesser Court.

I don't see how anyone could argue that these quotes are taken out of "context." They all specifically address the question of the "living" or "changing" nature of the US Constitution. President Obama is not the first or the last to make statements like that.

What compromises has "the Right" made? None. Come now. They spent the first Obama term trying to insure that he would not be re-elected. They are spending the second playing silly partisan games grasping at any straw they can to try to undermine Obama.

Do you REALLY think that if any of the Republicans in Congress felt they had a case against Obama for Executive Orders or his implementation of ACA ... do you think they wouldn't be Bringing Impeachment to the floor DAILY? C'mon!

The wheels of government have ground to a halt. That is NOT the purpose of the Congress and every one of them should be brought up on a Bill of Impeachment at the least if not Treason. Oh, but you can't Impeach Reps or Senators can you. The only way to get rid of them (talk about a rigged game) is for their own chamber to remove them from office.

I favor Treason more and more, actually. In my opinion.

reply to post by BomSquad

2. It is very had for two sides to compromise when they are trying to pass legislation on issues where their fundamental beliefs are diametrically opposed. I bet you would find it difficult to find someone willing to compromise their core beliefs in order to "get something done".

Unless the whole idea is to not "get something done" which is exactly what I think the whole shutdown was about. I really do not believe that the shutdown was a direct result of an inability to compromise, but rather as a direct result of out of control spending and debt. The resultant "automatic cuts" that resulted were better accepted by the public as something inevitable than if there was an announcement that both sides had worked out a solution that involved massive cuts. See what happened in Europe when it was done just that way?

Better that people get pissed off at Dems for wanting to continue spending and raise the debt limit or at the Repubs for wanting cuts in the budget instead of everyone being angry at those in office.

See what they did?

reply to post by BomSquad


Great post. I agree the wording of the question did invite a biased response. Mia Culpa. I amended the question twice as I became a little better informed by some great posters and I'm still not sure I have it right.

Still, I persist in the belief it was an honest question even if an ignorant one......