Political discussion thread

tamijo wrote: He appoints numerous regulatory "czars" who do not require the approval of congress, yet are given broad powers to dictate the actions of private companies with no Democratic process. The use of czars exploded under Bush, not under Obama, he just keeps it high. Havent dug deep enough to prove or disprove, that his czars do any more damage than those under Bush.

For the millionth time, I am not defending Bush. I am not talking about Bush. Bush is gone. Bush has been out of office four years. Bush is irrelevant. The argument "it's okay for Obama to do X because Bush did X (even though we threw hisy fits and compared Bush to Hitler when he did)" is not a good one.

thellama73 wrote: tamijo wrote: He appoints numerous regulatory "czars" who do not require the approval of congress, yet are given broad powers to dictate the actions of private companies with no Democratic process. The use of czars exploded under Bush, not under Obama, he just keeps it high. Havent dug deep enough to prove or disprove, that his czars do any more damage than those under Bush.   For the millionth time, I am not defending Bush. I am not talking about Bush. Bush is gone. Bush has been out of office four years. Bush is irrelevant. The argument "it's okay for Obama to do X because Bush did X (even though we threw hisy fits and compared Bush to Hitler when he did)" is not a good one.

The T wrote: It's going to be great when there are elections in Denmark and we can all make this thread the most popular in PA again...

Sorry if i post too much here, but as i started a question, i had to go trough the answer.

No - but you were expressing you opinion about people abroad.

Edited by tamijo - November 05 2012 at 12:17

And Gary Johnson wins 5% of the popular vote

@thellama73
"To understand this, it's important to understand that our Constitution is a list of all the powers the federal government has. It specifically says any powers not listed shall be reserved for the states or the people. So anytime the federal government does anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is in violation of it."

Yes, but the commerce clause has typically been given a broad interpretation. I think appropriately so. Conservatives may not agree.

"This administration has said it's okay to kill American citizens without a trial. That goes against the constitution."

I don't know the particular case, but, if it pans out, I certainly agree.

"For another, the president proposed and signed into law a requirement that citizens purchase a privately provided product (health insurance) or face a penalty. That power is not granted in the constitution."

You have a point. This is distasteful to me as well. The Supreme Court decided it was a tax, as you know. The Obama administration did not argue that it was a tax as you claimed it did. That argument was actually supplied by the Chief Justice, much to everyone's surprise. If they fought hard enough and got a public option, that would have solved the problem. One should be mindful that it was the Republicans' resistance to the public option that created the potential unconstitutionality in the first place, so I'm not sure how you can feel the Democrats are worse here unless you are claiming that there is something inherent to universal coverage under any legislative configuration that tramples over the constitution (and our civil liberties). I for one dislike this contorted centrist method of achieving universal coverage that we have now. I would prefer a single payer system. Just remove the part of the Medicare legislation that says 65 or older.

"He has refused to prosecute voter intimidation cases, interfering with free elections."

It warms my heart to hear a right leaning individual complain about this.

"He appoints numerous regulatory "czars" who do not require the approval of congress, yet are given broad powers to dictate the actions of private companies with no Democratic process."

As another has commented, the czar thing has been done for awhile. Historically the "czars" have been pretty toothless. I have to say, though, that I do not have enough knowledge to comment further about this czar or that czar.
On the other hand, perhaps you are talking about regulators in general and perhaps that the private companies are banks or other credit lending entities. I don't agree if you are referring to this. Leveraged buyouts, securities trading, buying and selling of credit and other schemes are de facto ways of creating alternative currencies. It is altogether appropriate and consistent with the constitution that regulation occur in the banking industry as part of Congress' constitutional power to establish the currency. With this power it has created legal authority for the executive branch to enforce its power over currency, since it cannot enforce anything itself. If you are talking about environmental regulation, on the other hand, it is easy to for me to see how this is justified under the commerce clause. I'm only kind of guessing which way you might have been headed here.

"Agents from his administration raided a Gibson Guitar factory and seized private property without a warrant and without filing any formal charges to allow the company to defend themselves in court."

I've heard of the IRS doing stuff like this way way back in the day. I agree it's truly awful. I have a Les Paul Classic Plus Trans Ebony Burst with a slim 60s tapered neck. If the government thinks it can take our guitars, then those are truly fighting words.

"I could go on, but I think that's enough for now."

I thought maybe you might mention his vote to extend the Patriot Act while he was still a Senator, and his embracing of and wide interpretation of the unconstitutional wire tapping provisions of the Patriot Act. Or his failure to deal satisfactorily with the enemy combatants at Guantanimo.

thellama73 wrote: tamijo wrote: The T wrote: It's going to be great when there are elections in Denmark and we can all make this thread the most popular in PA again... Sorry if i post too much here, but as i started a question, i had to go trough the answer.   ill keep quiet now. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but it seems like you are saying that past wrongdoing excuses future wrongdoing, and that unless you were there to protest at the first abuse of power (presumably before recorded history) you've missed your chance at having an opinion. Nixon lied and covered up a criminal scandal, for which he resigned his office. Are we supposed to accept it when politicians do that now because "well, Nixon did it first."? Clinton had sex with an intern and lied about it in a federal court. Are we supposed to ignore it the next time it happened "well, Clinton did it first, so it's okay." ? I was in my late teens/early twenties for most of Bush's term. I was not well politically informed and I hadn't developed my current political philosophy. Does that mean I am wrong to criticize Obama's abuses of power? If Bush were in office today, I would say that he trampled on the constitution. Personally, I believe Obama has been worse, but thta's not my major point and I don't want to get drawn into a discussion about it.

smartpatrol wrote: And Gary Johnson wins 5% of the popular vote

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Epignosis wrote: I suspect many people abroad support Obama because they care very little about the US Constitution You hit the nail on the head. Especially, I object to the part about states' rights. One of the worst political problems in Germany is the fact that the states have almost complete legislative control of their education system, including schooling. This has led to chaos and dramatic quality differences between the schools of different states. There are many (predominantly administrative) powers that make more sense to be in the hands of the states, but the idea that every state should have its own legislature regarding, say, the legality of abortion or gay marriage seems absurd to me.

I agree.  There shouldn't be public schooling at all. 

States do not have legislative control on abortion (Roe v. Wade). 

I don't think the government has any place telling us what is or isn't a marriage.

tamijo wrote: Offcourse you can criticize Obama's actions, no matter if Bush did the same, i was just saying, its been done before, its nothing new.

Yes, politicians have always done bad things, and we should always call them on it and not defend them simply on the grounds that it is not a new practice.