Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

American politics is fascinating. Do the republicans control HoR currently?

Yes. Hence, we have House Speaker John Bahner instead of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The "Fired" thing was basically about him being able to pick and choose Insurance companies.

However, his opponenets in the Repub nomination process saw it as a great opportunity to use Romney's Business backgroudn strength as a potential weakness. Classic.

Attack where your opponent believes he is strong.

So as I understand, that makes legislating very difficult for the democrats? I guess that will not change even with a comfortable Obama vicory?

Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator, or because the republicans don't like him and what he's trying to do?

troy_tempest wrote:Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator

He is a fairly charismatic man but he is working in one of the most polarized states the country has seen in in awhile.

troy_tempest wrote:or because the republicans don't like him

That is a big part of it.

troy_tempest wrote:and what he's trying to do?

That is a little more complicated. Some of it they don't like, but other things, like the Health Care Reform bill that was passed was made up of Republican ideas, but since it wasn't passed by them it comes under attack, which harkens back to them just not liking him. For some it is personal, for some it is just becuase they want to be the ones in power.

Romney seems like a sensible man, so whatever happens it seems like the US will have a good leader for the next few years.

troy_tempest wrote:So as I understand, that makes legislating very difficult for the democrats? I guess that will not change even with a comfortable Obama vicory?

For a bill to get through Congress it will need the support of at least some Republicans, so that makes legislating without bi-partisan agreement difficult. One problem is that for about a year the Democrats had the ability to pass any legislation they wanted and the Republicans couldn't do anything about it. The Republicans are now trying to back off some of this legislation (which requires the current Congress to follow up on it), and to some extent are expecting a victory in 2012, so they want to slow down what the Democrats are doing.

Will it change? Possible. All of the Representatives are up for re-election in 2012 and so are 33 Senators (23 Democrat, 10 Republican). However, most people tend to vote party-line with their presidential choice, so if Obama wins comfortably it's very likely that the Democrats will pick up a number of seats in the House and will retain control of the Senate.

Many of the projections I've seen show the Democrats losing seats in the Senate (probably not enough to lose it) and the House staying with a slight Republican bias.

troy_tempest wrote:Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator, or because the republicans don't like him and what he's trying to do?

Depends on who you ask. Obama certainly hasn't reached out much to the Republicans and the Republicans don't like him because of how he acted during his first two years in office - dismissive towards the minority party.

His recent actions (Libya, recess appointments, EPA, NLRB, etc.) are consistent with his rhetoric "where Congress is not willing to act, we're going to go ahead and do it ourselves." It's a massive overreach of Executive power, but Republicans aren't willing to challenge this overreach. Mainly because instituting impeachment proceedings (their only remedy) is a poison pill, especially because Democrats will spin it as "Republicans are Racist!"*

Note that whatever the Republicans do, the Democrats will spin it as "Republicans are Racist!"

When congress is not willing to act, traditionally the other two branches move to fill the gap. This is nothing new.

Therefore, it is in the Legislatives Branch best interest to do something, or the other two branches will infringe on their authority.

Once the Executive or Judicial sets the precedent of action, it can be hard for Congress to reverse these new precedents.

Easy E wrote:When congress is not willing to act, traditionally the other two branches move to fill the gap. This is nothing new.

Political deadlock/infighting in the Legislative branch is not a bug of our system of government, it's a feature. Also, traditionally the other two branches haven't 'moved to fill the gap.' I'm sure you could come up with some examples.

With the Senate seats there is always less of a popular referendum, or at least in my experience that's the case. Senators who represent thier states well tend to be respected regardless of party until the people of the state sour to them. It's probably not based on any kind of rational thinking, I don't give American voters that kind of credit. But that's just my opinion and not based on facts at all. The House is the place where shake ups according to popular opinion happen, most runners for the House are nameless faceless people no one cares about, and if they do have a face it's generally because they've been in the House too long and have become easy fodder for opponents. Barney Frank said he wouldn't run for reelection due to redistricting because he didn't want to have to ge to know his constituency; which speaks volumes about him and other career politicians.

troy_tempest wrote:So as I understand, that makes legislating very difficult for the democrats? I guess that will not change even with a comfortable Obama vicory?

Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator, or because the republicans don't like him and what he's trying to do?

The HR is a hard nut to crack, there are so many members that it is rare you will have a unified Dem or Repub "will."

The real issue is or is not having a "super" majority in the senate. Without that, any senator can filibuster any attempt at bringing up a bill. The 2008 Dems had a majority in the house and super majority in the senate as well as the president. That is why we now have "Obama care" the dems had no need to compromise so they could push anything through. They got what they wanted but also got smashed in the 2010 elections for their hubris of assuming they had a mandate.

AustonT wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Freaking out about the word fired in a totally different context is like saying "i notice your fire engine is red, whose side are you on?"

Independent.

That fire station is right next to my house.

If you don't like it, don't vote, or stop whining.
Politicians are gak because humans are gak. You want to improve the caliber of the political class, better break out your chemistry set.

biccat wrote:
Wait, what?

Did someone seriously take his comment that out of context?

Have you seen American politics?

biccat wrote:Also, traditionally the other two branches haven't 'moved to fill the gap.' I'm sure you could come up with some examples.

Enough to establish a tradition, in fact.

Hell, executive orders alone establish that fact.

Lordhat wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Freaking out about the word fired in a totally different context is like saying "i notice your fire engine is red, whose side are you on?"

Independent.

That fire station is right next to my house.

It's not far from my Mom's either. I have (and do) always thought the yellow trucks were very sharp.

biccat wrote:Also, traditionally the other two branches haven't 'moved to fill the gap.' I'm sure you could come up with some examples.

Enough to establish a tradition, in fact.

Hell, executive orders alone establish that fact.

Easy E wrote:Isn't it Repubs who scream the most about "Activist" judges? Why do you think they get "activist" in the first place?

I'm not a legal scholar like yourself, but I believe Judge Marshall seized the power to declare laws Unconstitutional, rather than that power being explicitly granted within the document itself. Again, I'm not a legal scholar so I'm sure you can point out the flaws in my argument ad nauseum.

I'm certainly not a "legal scholar." However, citing Marburry v. Madison as an example where Congress failed to act is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

In fact, in most cases where judges are being "activist" (advancing causes that don't have the popular support to pass Congress), Congress' failure to act is part of the political process, and as I said a bug not a feature.

biccat wrote:
In fact, in most cases where judges are being "activist" (advancing causes that don't have the popular support to pass Congress), Congress' failure to act is part of the political process, and as I said a bug not a feature.

The same argument can be made for judicial activism (though the concept itself is rather shaky).

troy_tempest wrote:
Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator, or because the republicans don't like him and what he's trying to do?

Yes and Yes

troy_tempest wrote:So as I understand, that makes legislating very difficult for the democrats? I guess that will not change even with a comfortable Obama vicory?

Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator, or because the republicans don't like him and what he's trying to do?

It's a little of everything. Obama's made numerous mistakes and missed a lot of opportunities. The Republican House class in 2010 included a large number of "Tea Party" Republicans who essentially outright said that anything Obama tried to do, they'd block.

I don't doubt Obama's going to win, though. The real threat to him this cycle would have been a strong fiscal conservative and social moderate, but that kind of candidate doesn't get through Republican primaries, at least without running so far to the right on social issues that he ends up getting hammered in the general election.

Still hoping the Tea Party will form thier own party and hope fully the really crazy right wingers will all gravitate to the TP or R and leave a conservative party free of nutters for us to vote for.

I'm voting Paul

biccat wrote:Mainly because instituting impeachment proceedings (their only remedy) is a poison pill, especially because Democrats will spin it as "Republicans are Racist!"

Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with impeachment proceedings infringing on the power of the Executive by way of precedent.

Also, you know, Obama hasn't committed an impeachable offense. You can't impeach someone simply because you don't like them.

biccat wrote:
Note that whatever the Republicans do, the Democrats will spin it as "Republicans are Racist!"

That certainly happens, but not as often as you seem to be implying.

dogma wrote:Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with impeachment proceedings infringing on the power of the Executive by way of precedent.

Hey, when one branch refuses to act, it's up to the others to take up the slack, right?

dogma wrote:Also, you know, Obama hasn't committed an impeachable offense. You can't impeach someone simply because you don't like them.

First of all, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" is basically whatever Congress says it is.

Second, I think that the recess appointment kerfuffle and/or military action in Libya could be sufficient grounds for impeachment.

biccat wrote:
Hey, when one branch refuses to act, it's up to the others to take up the slack, right?

Sure. Provided they have the power (power defined broadly), and incentive, to do so.

No one wants to impeach the President for what are, essentially, day-to-day actions because it means they'll run into problems when their party gains the office.

biccat wrote:
First of all, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" is basically whatever Congress says it is.

Well, its whatever Congress can reasonably argue in front of the body politic. And when Congress is extremely unpopular (pretty much always), there isn't much that Congress can reasonably argue outside the law as written. Its different when you get a popular Congressional figure doing the arguing, Newt is a good example, but even then impeachment proceedings aren't generally begun until a criminal offense is committed.

biccat wrote:
Second, I think that the recess appointment kerfuffle and/or military action in Libya could be sufficient grounds for impeachment.

I don't think either action fits a conservative reading of the list of impeachable offenses.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Second, I think that the recess appointment kerfuffle and/or military action in Libya could be sufficient grounds for impeachment.

I don't think either action fits a conservative reading of the list of impeachable offenses.

Really?

Recess appointments - ignoring the text of the Constitution that allows appointments without the Advice and Consent of the Senate only when the Senate is in recess. Precedent exists to support the interpretation that the Senate is not in recess when holding pro-forma sessions (see Harry Reid 2008, "I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made").

Libya - The War Powers Resolution requires the President to get Congressional approval for keeping troops longer than 60 days in hostilities. Congress never gave approval.

I think that a very good case can be made that either of these rise to the level of impeachable offenses, even under a conservative reading of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."

biccat wrote:
Recess appointments - ignoring the text of the Constitution that allows appointments without the Advice and Consent of the Senate only when the Senate is in recess. Precedent exists to support the interpretation that the Senate is not in recess when holding pro-forma sessions (see Harry Reid 2008, "I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made").

You know that quote is Reid recounting a move to block an appointment by Bush in 2007, right?

Either way, it wasn't a crime against the state, or a misdemeanor outside the argument outlined below.

biccat wrote:
Libya - The War Powers Resolution requires the President to get Congressional approval for keeping troops longer than 60 days in hostilities. Congress never gave approval.

Obama isn't the first President to ignore it (Clinton did it too.) and every President since the Resolution took effect has called it Unconstitutional. There's a whole lot of precedent supporting the idea that the Resolution is not something to impeach a President over.

biccat wrote:
I think that a very good case can be made that either of these rise to the level of impeachable offenses, even under a conservative reading of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The only way you can fit either incident into that phrase is by way of "misdemeanors" and you would have to argue that Obama's actions rendered him subject to impeachment because they indicated he possessed a misdemeanor (archaic sense) and therefore could not serve. Which is basically arguing that he cannot serve because you don't like him.

Bah!

Voting really is a waste of time. An individual vote never makes a difference on a national scale. And, even if it did, there's a very good chance you'll come to regret your decision later.

The only times its worthwhile to vote is when:

A) Its for a super local issue, so there's only going to be a few hundred people voting.
B) You're a member of the electoral college and its 1876.
C) You're a member of Congress (and, even then, it's usually a waste).

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I think that a very good case can be made that either of these rise to the level of impeachable offenses, even under a conservative reading of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The only way you can fit either incident into that phrase is by way of "misdemeanors" and you would have to argue that Obama's actions rendered him subject to impeachment because they indicated he possessed a misdemeanor (archaic sense) and therefore could not serve. Which is basically arguing that he cannot serve because you don't like him.

So what you're saying is that there's no (unless impeachment is being used for political purposes) political recourse for Congress to invalidate actions of the Executive that Congress feels violates the Constitution?

When the President ignores Congress, their recourse is impeachment of the Executive.

But like I said, there is no way that this Congress would impeach the president (not just because Democrats control the Senate). Therefore the President has a virtual blank check to do whatever he thinks he can get away with (read: make a good political case for). If you thought executive overreach was a problem during Bush, I can't see how you think it's not a problem now.

Also, Clinton had at least some legislative action he could fall back on. Funny that Republicans get the flak for being warmongers.

biccat wrote:
So what you're saying is that there's no (unless impeachment is being used for political purposes) political recourse for Congress to invalidate actions of the Executive that Congress feels violates the Constitution?

There's at least two. Congress can override a veto, or pass legislation.

biccat wrote:
Therefore the President has a virtual blank check to do whatever he thinks he can get away with (read: make a good political case for).

Just like everyone else.

biccat wrote:
If you thought executive overreach was a problem during Bush, I can't see how you think it's not a problem now.

I didn't think it was a problem under Bush.

You greatly underestimate my cynicism, and overestimate my adherence to the Democrats.

biccat wrote:
Also, Clinton had at least some legislative action he could fall back on. Funny that Republicans get the flak for being warmongers.

That's because they have an incentive to call their military actions wars.

Its easily spun.

dogma wrote:There's at least two. Congress can override a veto, or pass legislation.

Neither of which would solve either of the problems I pointed out.