Monday, August 11, 2014

BUT A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT WILL DO WHATEVER THE HELL HE WANTS NO MATTER WHAT

Jonathan Chait thinks that supporters of immigration reform who are rooting for unilateral action from President Obama should be careful what they wish for:
... I fully support Obama's immigration policy goals. But the defenses of Obama's methods seem weak and short-sighted.

To imagine how this method might be dangerous, you have to abstract it away from the specific end it advances and consider another administration using similar methods for policies liberals might not like. What if a Republican president announced that he would stop enforcing the payment of estate taxes? Or suspend enforcement of regulations on industrial pollution? Or laws on workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians?
And that's not going to happen if President Obama backs away now from taking steps on behalf of the undocumented? Of course it's going to happen -- the Republican Party is too radical now, too full of its own revolutionary fervor and its sense that it represents the will of all Real Americans. More to the point, the Republican faithful already believe that Obama has overstepped constitutional boundaries so blatantly that totalitarian dictators and the ghost of Richard Nixon can only gape in awe. The people who aren't considered crazies in the Republican Party -- y'know, like John Boehner, he of the House lawsuit against the president? -- aren't waiting for an immigration executive order to declare Obama an out-of-control tyrant; they call him an out-of-control tyrant now. How can whatever the president is planning have any impact on that belief, given how firmly it's already entrenched?

Did the Bush/Cheney administration wait for an example of alleged overreach by a Democratic president before building Guantanamo and making torture the law of the land? No. Then why would President Christie or Walker or Paul or Ryan or Cruz be constrained by an Obama change of heart on immigration now?

The only reason the next Republican president won't be a law unto himself is that he'll probably have a rubber-stamp Republican Congress to ratify every radical, extreme item on his to-do list in the constitutionally prescribed way. But if Democrats hang on in one house of Congress, the next Republican in the Oval Office will say that nothing he does or seeks to do can compare to what Obama's already done as I write this, mild though it may be in actuality. So screw it, Obama may as well do whatever he's planning.

12 comments:

Philo Vaihinger said...

No, you are way wrong on this.

Steve M. said...

Feel free to elaborate at any time.

Victor said...

Philo,
No, he is way right on this!

The Republican Party right now, is batshit insane, and full of Manichean racists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes, and "Christian" absolutists.

If they regain power as they are currently constituted, they will do whatever it takes to turn this country into a Christian Theocratic Fascist Plutocracy.

Don't doubt that for a minute.

Think "The Handmaid's Tale."

duffandnonsense said...

And so, with a shrug and a yawn, you toss your Constitution into the Potomac.

And thus you deserve everything you will eventually get!

Dark Avenger said...

That's Nixon you're thinking of, Duff.

Funny defense of the American Constitution, when you really don't have freedom of speech or assembly back in Merry Olde Englande.

Perhaps you could work on the beam in your eye before pointing out the motes in others across the pond.

As J. S. Mill said, most stupid people are conservatives. Thanks for confirming that statement, Duff.

Steve M. said...

You do realize, Duff, that a thing doesn't become unconstitutional just because it inspires a million Fox News zombies to chant "Constitution! Constitution!" Right?

duffandnonsense said...

So can the president break laws passed by Congress - or not?

And, DA, "you really don't have freedom of speech or assembly back in Merry Olde Englande", may I ask which planet you inhabit?

Steve M. said...

Do we have the resources, under current law, to apprehend every single person who crosses the border illegally? No, we don't. And if there are inevitably going to be illegal crossings, who gets to decide how enforcement resources are allocated, in a circumstance when the legislative process will not yield new legislation? Duff, are you arguing that, under present law, Congress has to sign off on every single allocation decision?

Ray said...

If the GOP had an idea of what to do to address the issues on anything at all, they would of pass bipartisan legislation. They have not. They knew what they tried to pass as immigration reform was a joke.
Thus if President Obama in acts policies that the GOP does not like it is their fault for practicing blatant obstructionism. What should of been done a long time ago the Patriot Act sec 802 should of been used against the real crazy GOP members. The laws are on the books to deal with the type of behavior and should be enforced ASAP.

Dark Avenger said...

So can the president break laws passed by Congress - or not?

may I ask which planet you inhabit

The one where the Official Secrets Act is still in force, I would say:

Richard Tomlinson, former MI6 agent imprisoned in 1997 for breaking the 1989 Act, by attempting to publish a book detailing his career.

And 100 years ago, the Defense of the Realm Act was passed: We only imprisoned Eugene Debs, your forefathers imprisoned Bertrand Russell.

The trivial peacetime activities no longer permitted included flying kites, starting bonfires, buying binoculars, feeding wild animals bread, discussing naval and military matters or buying alcohol on public transport. Alcoholic beverages were watered down and pub opening times were restricted to noon–3pm and 6:30pm–9:30pm (the requirement for an afternoon gap in permitted hours lasted in England until the Licensing Act 1988 was brought into force).

duffandnonsense said...

DA, E for Effort but you failed to answer my question - is it legal for a president to break laws passed by Congress - yes or no?

Of course we have an Official Secrets Act, more or less the same as you do which is why Edward Snowden had better hide his sorry, cowardly arse in Moscow!

Flying kites - saw dozens of them at the beach a fortnight ago.

Starting bonfires - we do that regularly all over the country on Nov 5th to celebrate Guy Fawkes who tried to blow up parliament!

You can but binoculars anywhere anytime, and people regularly fed foxes in the big cities.

Go to any Saloon Bar (that's the posh one, as opposed to the Public bar where the oiks go) and you will find sundry retired Majors opining on matters military - which is why, on the whole, I prefer the Public bar!

If any government tried to water down the beer today they would have a riot on their hands! And today, alas, pubs open from about 10.30am through until midnight or later on weekends which is why the street of England look like the Wild West on a Saturday night!

Look, you have a splendid Constitution, not least because much of it was written by Englishmen and influenced by Englishmen - so look after it, *irrespective of who is sitting in the White House* plotting to get round it!

Dark Avenger said...

Of course we have an Official Secrets Act, more or less the same as you do which is why Edward Snowden had better hide his sorry, cowardly arse in Moscow!

Except we don't have one here in this country, and Daniel Ellsberg, who you may have heard of, said it was the smart thing to do, seeing how are treating people like Chelsea Manning.

If any government tried to water down the beer today they would have a riot on their hands! And today, alas, pubs open from about 10.30am through until midnight or later on weekends which is why the street of England look like the Wild West on a Saturday night!

Then you can understand why the British government thought it necessary to keep the drunken rabble from forming any organized opposition to WWI.