5 ms·

Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' If you want to get law-makers (i.e. legislators) to take notice just write your representative a letter.

by pyre 14y ago

visualcsharp 14y ago
I logged in to post that very message. Why are we petitioning the executive branch to "make it legal?" Last time I checked, the Constitutional authority to write laws is vested in the Congress. Be careful how much you clamor for Obama to make all your wishes come true, folks. You might just get more than you bargained for.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' Probably since overriding a veto is a lot harder than getting one more Senator to vote for the bill, which means the President has more say in what makes it into law than any individual legislator.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  Don't forget signing statements and executive orders.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    And political appointees.
pessimizer 14y ago
As the guy who signs bills into law, and as the head of his party (meaning that he dictates how they are going to be whipped) he is lawmaker number 1.
- btilly 14y ago
  The President is not the head of the party (Debbie Wasserman Schultz is to the extent that the position exists), nor is he in charge of whipping people (for the Democrats that's Steny Hoyer right now). He admittedly does have a huge bully pulpit. A defined legislative role. And he does personally lean on representatives. But the US has absolutely nothing equivalent to the organization and party discipline that countries. And "President" is an individually elected position by the country, and has no particular relation to his party other than "(very prominent) member".
  - pessimizer 14y ago
    The chair of the DNC is not (even a little bit) the leader of the party, and the Whip is not the person who determines what policy people are to be whipped to. A sitting President is always the head of their party.
    - btilly 14y ago
      Citation needed. My understanding of US political parties says that they do not have a rigid structure nor a single head. Indeed if you look through the section on the structure of the Democratic Party on Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Current_structure_and_composition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States... - really, go look) you won't find Barack Obama's name anywhere in that section. The President has a huge bully pulpit. He is in charge of one of the 3 branches of government. The public hears and sees the President. But the President does not run the party.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  > he is lawmaker number 1. The president is a member of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. He signs bills into law in his authority as an executive who will be responsible for carrying out the laws that the legislators write, not as a legislator responsible for creating those laws. You absolutely cannot say that he is "lawmaker number 1", because he's not even a lawmaker. The fact that most presidents happen to have served as legislators (senators) previously is irrelevant; that was their job then, and this is their job now. He is not the head of his party. Nor is he the one who dictates how they will (or should) be whipped - the President isn't even supposed to have any say in the process of whipping votes - that falls on Reid, Pelosi, etc. (who actually have the resources to whip legislators, since they can make promises of campaign money, etc.) We live in an era where the power of the executive has been illegally expanded well beyond what it was originally intended to be - we can thank Bush and Obama for the bulk of that (at least most recently). But that does not actually change the role that the president has (or should have) in legislative matters.
  - coldpie 14y ago
    You might be interested in the phrase "realpolitik". The phrase comes from Germany in the mid-1800s. "Realpolitik" refers to politics as they actually occur, as opposed to the idealized interpretation you were taught in middle school, for example. America has never in its history operated according to the ideal. It's just easier to become informed in America in 2013 than it was 150 years ago, so the discrepancies between the ideal and the realpolitik are more obvious. I guess this boils down to whether you find manipulating the realpolitik to be more or less effective than trying to eliminate it.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  The President may be nominal head of the party, but whips take direction, insofar as they take it at all, from the caucus leadership in the house of Congress in which they sit, not from the general leadership of the party. The US doesn't have a strong unitary party system of the kind you might find in a typical Westminster system (of course, in a Westminster system, the head of government would also be the leader of the party sitting in the primary house of the legislature, not a separately-elected official outside of that house.)
betterunix 14y ago
Since at least 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act gave the executive branch of government the power to declare drugs illegal without involving Congress.
- pyre 14y ago
  Cool, that applies in this situation, how?
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Inability to exercise abstract thinking is a big part of what got us into this mess. It's all well and good when an executive power grab results in an outcome that you agree with, after all.
    - pyre 14y ago
      Someone used a petition to the White House/President as an excuse to lament about needing to use the petition process to appeal to 'law-makers,' presumably referring to Congress. I pointed out that we're talking about the President here, who is not a law-maker. Referencing a specific ability the President has which might qualify him as a 'law-maker' is at best a factoid in this conversation, especially because it doesn't even apply to the petition that we are discussing. The President's ability to classify drugs has little to do with banning/allowing phone unlocking (and one would be hard-pressed to apply a general label of 'law-maker' to the President based on a single power, which might better reside with Congress). Also, where do I show a lack of abstract thinking? Where do I say that I agree with the President having such power? Are you assuming my response of, "Cool, but that's not what we are discussing here" is akin to, "I don't want to discuss this because I agree with it?" That would be a pretty huge leap to conclusions (if that's what you're reading into). TL;DR - The President does not fit the generic term "law-maker," except for (maybe) very specific instance(s), none (that I know) of which apply to this situation.

Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' If you want to get law-makers (i.e. legislators) to take notice just write your representative a letter.

by pyre 14y ago

Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' If you want to get law-makers (i.e. legislators) to take notice just write your representative a letter.

visualcsharp 14y ago

I logged in to post that very message. Why are we petitioning the executive branch to "make it legal?" Last time I checked, the Constitutional authority to write laws is vested in the Congress. Be careful how much you clamor for Obama to make all your wishes come true, folks. You might just get more than you bargained for.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' Probably since overriding a veto is a lot harder than getting one more Senator to vote for the bill, which means the President has more say in what makes it into law than any individual legislator.

DigitalJack 14y ago
Don't forget signing statements and executive orders.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  And political appointees.

pessimizer 14y ago

As the guy who signs bills into law, and as the head of his party (meaning that he dictates how they are going to be whipped) he is lawmaker number 1.

btilly 14y ago
The President is not the head of the party (Debbie Wasserman Schultz is to the extent that the position exists), nor is he in charge of whipping people (for the Democrats that's Steny Hoyer right now). He admittedly does have a huge bully pulpit. A defined legislative role. And he does personally lean on representatives. But the US has absolutely nothing equivalent to the organization and party discipline that countries. And "President" is an individually elected position by the country, and has no particular relation to his party other than "(very prominent) member".
- pessimizer 14y ago
  The chair of the DNC is not (even a little bit) the leader of the party, and the Whip is not the person who determines what policy people are to be whipped to. A sitting President is always the head of their party.
  - btilly 14y ago
    Citation needed. My understanding of US political parties says that they do not have a rigid structure nor a single head. Indeed if you look through the section on the structure of the Democratic Party on Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Current_structure_and_composition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States... - really, go look) you won't find Barack Obama's name anywhere in that section. The President has a huge bully pulpit. He is in charge of one of the 3 branches of government. The public hears and sees the President. But the President does not run the party.
chimeracoder 14y ago
> he is lawmaker number 1. The president is a member of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. He signs bills into law in his authority as an executive who will be responsible for carrying out the laws that the legislators write, not as a legislator responsible for creating those laws. You absolutely cannot say that he is "lawmaker number 1", because he's not even a lawmaker. The fact that most presidents happen to have served as legislators (senators) previously is irrelevant; that was their job then, and this is their job now. He is not the head of his party. Nor is he the one who dictates how they will (or should) be whipped - the President isn't even supposed to have any say in the process of whipping votes - that falls on Reid, Pelosi, etc. (who actually have the resources to whip legislators, since they can make promises of campaign money, etc.) We live in an era where the power of the executive has been illegally expanded well beyond what it was originally intended to be - we can thank Bush and Obama for the bulk of that (at least most recently). But that does not actually change the role that the president has (or should have) in legislative matters.
- coldpie 14y ago
  You might be interested in the phrase "realpolitik". The phrase comes from Germany in the mid-1800s. "Realpolitik" refers to politics as they actually occur, as opposed to the idealized interpretation you were taught in middle school, for example. America has never in its history operated according to the ideal. It's just easier to become informed in America in 2013 than it was 150 years ago, so the discrepancies between the ideal and the realpolitik are more obvious. I guess this boils down to whether you find manipulating the realpolitik to be more or less effective than trying to eliminate it.
dragonwriter 14y ago
The President may be nominal head of the party, but whips take direction, insofar as they take it at all, from the caucus leadership in the house of Congress in which they sit, not from the general leadership of the party. The US doesn't have a strong unitary party system of the kind you might find in a typical Westminster system (of course, in a Westminster system, the head of government would also be the leader of the party sitting in the primary house of the legislature, not a separately-elected official outside of that house.)

betterunix 14y ago

Since at least 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act gave the executive branch of government the power to declare drugs illegal without involving Congress.

pyre 14y ago
Cool, that applies in this situation, how?
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Inability to exercise abstract thinking is a big part of what got us into this mess. It's all well and good when an executive power grab results in an outcome that you agree with, after all.
  - pyre 14y ago
    Someone used a petition to the White House/President as an excuse to lament about needing to use the petition process to appeal to 'law-makers,' presumably referring to Congress. I pointed out that we're talking about the President here, who is not a law-maker. Referencing a specific ability the President has which might qualify him as a 'law-maker' is at best a factoid in this conversation, especially because it doesn't even apply to the petition that we are discussing. The President's ability to classify drugs has little to do with banning/allowing phone unlocking (and one would be hard-pressed to apply a general label of 'law-maker' to the President based on a single power, which might better reside with Congress). Also, where do I show a lack of abstract thinking? Where do I say that I agree with the President having such power? Are you assuming my response of, "Cool, but that's not what we are discussing here" is akin to, "I don't want to discuss this because I agree with it?" That would be a pretty huge leap to conclusions (if that's what you're reading into). TL;DR - The President does not fit the generic term "law-maker," except for (maybe) very specific instance(s), none (that I know) of which apply to this situation.