4 ms·

That`s what it supposed to be like and we wish it was. In reality, starting with Iraq war, Patriot Act, Health Care, Bailouts and much more, didnt have time for

by SergeyB 12y ago

That`s what it supposed to be like and we wish it was. In reality, starting with Iraq war, Patriot Act, Health Care, Bailouts and much more, didnt have time for debates in Congress. President pushed it, Congress approved. President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. Example Executive Order 13233 (signed by Bush, makes President an exception from Freedom Of Information Act)

aeturnum 12y ago
I think you're way too easy on congress (and they will happily pass the buck for unpopular decisions to the president). They could have done more, but chose not to. This is not a case of the president "pushing" their agenda through, but of the president's agent coinciding with the agendas of congress.
mturmon 12y ago
"President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress." This is false. The president can change interpretations of law (this is how E.O. 13233 was couched), but cannot pass a new law on his own. This is in Articles I and II of the Constitution. In time of war or crisis, people will allow generous interpretations of the President's role to interpret the law, but time catches up. Obviously Health Care (i.e., ACA) caused huge debate and negotiation with Congress. The Iraq War resolution (the 2002 one) was a different situation in which Congress passed a wishy-washy resolution that was, in typical fashion, over-extended by the Bush administration. But Congress went along.
- SergeyB 12y ago
  Whatever. You can call it anything you like : act, interpretation, change, results are the same. If President signs piece of paper that restricts your liberties, then he has power to change the law, and that power is substantial - that was my point.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. The executive branch of government executes laws, it does not (and Constitutionally cannot) create them. Executive orders are valid to the extent that they direct actions within the executive branch within the laws binding that branch and apply only powers the President has under the Constitution and laws. The practical distinction may vanish when the other branches do not effectively check the executive when it exceeds its Constitutional power, but that's not inherent in the President heading the Executive branch -- the same is equally true of excesses in other branches, though the unitary nature of the executive provides less of an intra-branch check on abuses by the President than exists for any actor in the legislative or judicial branches (though collective excesses, such as -- as a purely hypothetical example -- the Supreme Court intruding into Congress' Constitutional role in judging the propriety of Presidential electoral votes including the process by which they are assigned -- can still occur and be problematic if left unchecked by the other branches.)

by SergeyB 12y ago

aeturnum 12y ago

I think you're way too easy on congress (and they will happily pass the buck for unpopular decisions to the president). They could have done more, but chose not to. This is not a case of the president "pushing" their agenda through, but of the president's agent coinciding with the agendas of congress.

mturmon 12y ago

"President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress." This is false. The president can change interpretations of law (this is how E.O. 13233 was couched), but cannot pass a new law on his own. This is in Articles I and II of the Constitution. In time of war or crisis, people will allow generous interpretations of the President's role to interpret the law, but time catches up. Obviously Health Care (i.e., ACA) caused huge debate and negotiation with Congress. The Iraq War resolution (the 2002 one) was a different situation in which Congress passed a wishy-washy resolution that was, in typical fashion, over-extended by the Bush administration. But Congress went along.

SergeyB 12y ago
Whatever. You can call it anything you like : act, interpretation, change, results are the same. If President signs piece of paper that restricts your liberties, then he has power to change the law, and that power is substantial - that was my point.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. The executive branch of government executes laws, it does not (and Constitutionally cannot) create them. Executive orders are valid to the extent that they direct actions within the executive branch within the laws binding that branch and apply only powers the President has under the Constitution and laws. The practical distinction may vanish when the other branches do not effectively check the executive when it exceeds its Constitutional power, but that's not inherent in the President heading the Executive branch -- the same is equally true of excesses in other branches, though the unitary nature of the executive provides less of an intra-branch check on abuses by the President than exists for any actor in the legislative or judicial branches (though collective excesses, such as -- as a purely hypothetical example -- the Supreme Court intruding into Congress' Constitutional role in judging the propriety of Presidential electoral votes including the process by which they are assigned -- can still occur and be problematic if left unchecked by the other branches.)