The New Imperial President

[Kulindahr]

Remember the charge that Nixon was an "imperial president"? a label slapped on Ronald Reagan, too? Well, we have another one to add to the list, a president who is deliberately enforcing policies, by decree, that Congress has specifically rejected.

It started when he embraced the imperial aspects of his predecessor's policies, with obvious human rights violations involved. But he's gone beyond that to -- well, read for yourself...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/05/26/barack-obama-the-imperial-president

 

[JB3]

Par for the course. I'm not sure why anyone expected Obama to be any different.

 

[rareboy]

Hey.

Bush and Cheney perfected the Imperial Presidency by issuing more signing orders than were likely issued in the first 230 years of the office.

With a moribund and totally dysfunctional legislative branch....how long do Americans think it was going to be before the Executive would have to work around the systemic paralysis by using a page from the playbook of the dictatorial south american presidential playbook.

A multi-party parliamentary democracy is preferable, but even in Canuckistan here, the Prime Minister can just issue cabinet orders.

We have moved into an era of rule by fiat.

 

[Jack Springer]

Remember the charge that Nixon was an "imperial president"? a label slapped on Ronald Reagan, too? Well, we have another one to add to the list, a president who is deliberately enforcing policies, by decree, that Congress has specifically rejected.

It started when he embraced the imperial aspects of his predecessor's policies, with obvious human rights violations involved. But he's gone beyond that to -- well, read for yourself...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/05/26/barack-obama-the-imperial-president

Why do you hate our President so much?

 

[JB3]

That article proves nothing for me. It's far too vague, and seems like nothing more than a talking point for whatever Republican runs in 2012. Absolute meh. From the article linked in the OP:

This sentence should have ended with nothing else than the words "... is completely understandable." Congress has failed its role through most, if not all, of my life (think about that, Boomers on here) and his opponents, the "Party of No" has accomplished nothing but devastation to this country and the globe. In fact, the entire sentence began with a lie--- Obama attempted to let Congress accomplish health care reform and ending DADT, and he did attempt to let the Republicans put their views in--- it's just that their views were either missing or fucking sucked is not Obama's fault.

You missed the point completely.

 

[chuck10x]

Another example would be the case of Thomas Drake.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer

 

[Stardreamer]

My general observation is Congress is more than willing to attack the opposition President when he manages to enact powers that benefit the Presidency as 'imperial' but they rarely do anything to actually retract those laws. The reason I believe is because they are secretly slavering over the inevitable time when their party will win the White House.

 

[Kulindahr]

Another example would be the case of Thomas Drake.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer

Incredible.

Ambrocious' notions begin to seem less crazy: that there are power interests, or some organization, driving policy regardless of the president.

 

[SteveyBoyLA]

Frankly, there is not much in Roff's article that causes me to be shocked or concerned. Roff is a former Political Director of GOPAC, the political committee once headed by House Speaker Newt Gingrich. His boy is running for office, so he writes an article that has the hint of a potential abuse of presidential powers. He has a history of partisan poking at Obama. Roff writes:

Obama, since coming into office, has made frequent use of executive power to achieve his objects, even over the stated opposition of Congress and the federal courts.

I couldn't find one reference in his article where the federal courts have stated any opposition to his actions. I can't take this guy seriously.

 

[chuck10x]

Incredible.

Ambrocious' notions begin to seem less crazy: that there are power interests, or some organization, driving policy regardless of the president.

Yes Kulindahr, Just Incredible.
I purposely didn't leave a remark or quote any part of the article because it just is too hard to believe.
What I find remarkable is that there have been no posts on this, Even though it was on 60 Minutes, NPR and in The New Yorker.
I still have no personal comment on it, The article just leaves you speechless.
Ambrocious not only seems less crazy, He might not have gone far enough.

 

[rareboy]

My general observation is Congress is more than willing to attack the opposition President when he manages to enact powers that benefit the Presidency as 'imperial' but they rarely do anything to actually retract those laws. The reason I believe is because they are secretly slavering over the inevitable time when their party will win the White House.

This.

The American powerbrokers have long recognized that the legislative branch is broken beyond fixing and look to the respective turns in the oval office of their own candidates in order to shift the US closer and closer to the model of federal Government where there will effectively be the potential for Imperium.

The two official peoples' parties in the US are only the 2 sides of the same coin and recognize that the world is now so complex that several hundred used car salesmen and ex-television personalities can't be trusted to actually do the right thing by the nation.

The US presidency has tilted toward Imperial aspirations from the beginning...it is a fascinating history. Now, while it is recognized that it would be unacceptable to permit family dynasties to take control of the office, the Presidency is constantly being crafted and refined to ensure that come the day when the Congress and Senate are finally filled with witless and stupid puppets set to fight amongst themselves and achieve nothing, the Executive Branch will have the necessary powers to get something done.

 

[CowboyBob]

Why do you hate our President so much?

Why do you?




I love these Imperials...

 

[JayHawk]

Well if that is the case isnt it time for the American Caligula?

At least it would be entertaining.

If you truly understand how things are being done then it make you less ...what was that campaign word for 2008.....shit ...oh yeah ....less hopeful that CHANGE will ever occur regardless of party or promises. The actions of any President are fairly predictable based on what the world is doing. Occasionally they will roll out a program or two and make us feel like we are getting something out of it.

Nice rides CB... especially the '32

 

[JayHawk]

Hey looking around at this issue for other sources I realized Obama recently signed GTMO back into action.

So where is the vitriol and outrage? It was a HUGE human rights issue about .....ohhhhhh... 3 years ago....

You mean Bush coulda just SAID he was gonna close it down and waited for all the attack weenies to fall asleep or is it just because it is a liberal whacko who is takin the poor terrorist rights away?

I know off topic but this topic caused it....

 

[Kulindahr]

iirc, Obama did try closing the thing down, but no one would take the prisoners. I also think that seeing what they are suspected of being held for, which most (if not none) of us are able to know, we've allowed complacency to kick in that perhaps there is something to Dubya's claims. That's, if anything, my take on the Guantanamo Bay thing. Obama's strongest principle, regardless of his obvious pragmatism, is that he won't budge on matters of national security, to a definite fault.

One could argue that perhaps more important things arose when the economy went to hell. That usually serves as a great distraction for one's idle time.

Not budging on national security, while neglecting the people's rights, is a good sign of imperium -- threats to security are threats to the emperor; the people losing rights isn't.

 

[JB3]

Hardly the case with the current president.

How about re-signing the patriot act? The rampant abuse of rights by the TSA? The continuation of domestic surveillance?

This president is no better (and in some cases worse) than Bush. Continuing the status quo doesn't mean he's any better.

 

[303gfunk]

One President (or 43) is not going to be able to change all of the workings of a worldwide network of profit and power that has been building since at least the 1300's. America is just the most recent care-taker of the status-quo. The better question I think is what can we do to absolve ourselves of any perceived guilt we may have of living in one of the places that benefits from this system, or what can the people that are suffering from this system do to take control of said system. "Imperialism" is a fact of life since the dawn of civilization, if someone has something that is vital that another doesn't and is not willing to share it freely, expect the one without to come and take it, or at the very least ruin it.

 

[JB3]

The Patriot Act is done by Congress, legislation passed by our representatives without once being held accountable for its initial passage or subsequent reauthorizations.

And he supported its renewal. He didn't have to. Or he could have demanded serious changes. But he didn't do a damn thing to make it any less offensive to the rights of Americans.

The TSA baffles me. I never fly and never will, since 9/11 was enough reason for the American people to tolerate being raped to the point that South Park made fun of it years ago. Not sure how I can blame that on Obama either. The silly notion that profiling is bad has pretty much meant that "probable threats" must be equally suspicious as the public at large. Not surprising how that became an increasingly sharp incline covered in a surface with no grip.

Its gotten quite a bit worse and much more invasive under Obama. So severe, in fact, that states that passed laws outlawing certain methods of search (invasive and inappropriate pat-downs when there is no justification for them), and were in turn told by the TSA that they would ban all flights to their states if the laws were signed by their governors. To say that TSA abuse of rights has rapidly accelerated and expanded under Obama would be an understatement.

Domestic surveillance in what way? I can't imagine you think, from local on up to the federal, domestic surveillance is only new under the current or previous president, or that such is heinous and wholly for the pursuit of evil by the sitting president, who MUST be nothing more than an emperor. So please specify.

Its been expanded under Bush, and expanded even more under Obama, despite statements highly critical of the practice during the last presidential campaign. Again, he didn't have to continue the practices of his predecessor, but he did.

You sound like an Obama apologist.

(oh, and I haven't even mentioned how fake his claims of 'transparency' are)

 

[Jack Springer]

Hey looking around at this issue for other sources I realized Obama recently signed GTMO back into action.

So where is the vitriol and outrage? It was a HUGE human rights issue about .....ohhhhhh... 3 years ago....

You mean Bush coulda just SAID he was gonna close it down and waited for all the attack weenies to fall asleep or is it just because it is a liberal whacko who is takin the poor terrorist rights away?

I know off topic but this topic caused it....

We don't talk negative about the President on this forum.

PS: don't you mean overland park?

 

[rareboy]

Hey looking around at this issue for other sources I realized Obama recently signed GTMO back into action.

So where is the vitriol and outrage? It was a HUGE human rights issue about .....ohhhhhh... 3 years ago....

You mean Bush coulda just SAID he was gonna close it down and waited for all the attack weenies to fall asleep or is it just because it is a liberal whacko who is takin the poor terrorist rights away?

I know off topic but this topic caused it....

If the US legislature hadn't prevented the prisoners from being brought onto US soil....or each country would have accepted its own nationals....or there could have been assurance that they would accept them and then not just turn them loose, who knows how things would have turned out?

It should still be an outrage, but given the opportunity to make things right, the American lawmakers realized that an extra-legal prison on a chunk of land they don't have to care about is just about as perfect as it gets.