Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm 19:15, and I don't entirely disagree with this as a general concept. But when even a willing Congress can barely get it together to pass a law, there's a problem. And our government is very much structured to make it extremely difficult to pass laws in a way pretty much no other modern democracy is.

Sorry. That is no excuse. His executive orders were way over the line.

Did you read my first post? I agree it doesn't change the damage to the Constitution wrought by these actions. To me, there's a question of whether we need to revisit the Constitution...not disregard it.

the constitution is fine. it's the obstructionist republicans that need to change. that will take voters.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm 19:15, and I don't entirely disagree with this as a general concept. But when even a willing Congress can barely get it together to pass a law, there's a problem. And our government is very much structured to make it extremely difficult to pass laws in a way pretty much no other modern democracy is.

Sorry. That is no excuse. His executive orders were way over the line.

Did you read my first post? I agree it doesn't change the damage to the Constitution wrought by these actions. To me, there's a question of whether we need to revisit the Constitution...not disregard it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coal is a dying industry. There is no long-time future with coal. Everyone knows that. Time to invest in new industries, especially clean energy.

Yeah, screw those people and their communities out in KY and OH that mine coal. They can start building apps or drive for Uber or something.

Are you kidding me? The Obama Administration has a big focus on helping the Appalachian region transition with things such as the POWER initiative. Putting lots of $ into this. http://www.arc.gov/images/grantsandfunding/POWER2016/FFOs/POWER-2016-Grants-FFO.pdf

This narrative about the "war on coal" is nothing but industry propaganda from Murray Energy and others. Coal isn't dying off because of Obama. It's dying off because of the FREE MARKET. Natural gas is kicking coal's ass. Those coal mining jobs aren't coming back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coal is a dying industry. There is no long-time future with coal. Everyone knows that. Time to invest in new industries, especially clean energy.

Yeah, screw those people and their communities out in KY and OH that mine coal. They can start building apps or drive for Uber or something.

Are you kidding me? The Obama Administration has a big focus on helping the Appalachian region transition with things such as the POWER initiative. Putting lots of $ into this. http://www.arc.gov/images/grantsandfunding/POWER2016/FFOs/POWER-2016-Grants-FFO.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well said. Unfortunately, the current administration was so aggressive in executive actions and discretion that it has set the bar for the Trump admin. I expect to hear a lot of executive actions justified by 'Obama did it before us'. You reap what you sow I guess. Bush II stretched executive authority, and Obama ran with that hard.

I suppose Congressional dysfunction had nothing to do with Obama's use of executive action...

Our government needs to function. If it doesn't function one way, it'll function another way. But as Obama has discovered, courts trump the other two branches. If Trump chooses to go forward with executive actions, he too will discover that.

Different PP. I completely understand why Obama made the choices he did, but it doesn't mean that they would not have had potentially risky consequences. The American system of government is designed to be very slow moving and to place high hurdles in front of doing anything. One can argue that it's actually become outdated with regard to enabling modern governance. There was always the risk that Congress could simply refuse to govern, and back in the 1780s when the Constitution was written that was not seen as the crisis it is today.

The fact that there was some justification for Obama's actions does not change their consequence with respect to Constitutional checks and balances. More and more, I think it's a real question as to whether we need a new Constitutional convention. That seems almost insane, but so does having a reality TV star with no governing experience as President.

Why? The courts are set to review Obama's executive order on immigration. That sounds like checks and balances in action. Congress's inability to pass laws is its own dysfunction. I don't know if we need a whole constitutional convention to resolve that. I mean what could a constitutional change do to force Congress to be reasonable and legislate?

You know. Not making new laws is in fact a reasonable choice. The idea that the President should make his own laws via executive order because the congress will not give him the laws he wants is an abuse of power. The congress by not saying yes said no.

Obama has essentially done what a child does when the child wants something and the parents don't give it to him. The child went around the parents and got what they wanted. When the parents see what the child did the child should get in trouble.

Umm. Immigration reform has been a big issue for years, decades even. Obama waited years and years for Congress to do something, to do what they're supposed to. Congress did nothing.

But they did do something. They chose NOT to act. That is a valid choice. You might not like that decision, but it is a valid one.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm 19:15, and I don't entirely disagree with this as a general concept. But when even a willing Congress can barely get it together to pass a law, there's a problem. And our government is very much structured to make it extremely difficult to pass laws in a way pretty much no other modern democracy is.

Sorry. That is no excuse. His executive orders were way over the line.

Nope. And if regulatory and discretionary executive actions were over the line, Congress and the Courts have official remedies. Trump's retribution by tweet is dangerous and idiotic and no comparable to anything Obama or any other President since Nixon has done.

Which maybe is a good thing when you are in the minority as the Democrats are now?

There are already GOP Senators saying no Obamacare repeal without replace (because it would be insane for the healthcare industry and they won't take it) ...replace is going to be very hard to pass in the Senate without at least some Democratic support --> thus hard to repeal Obamacare in any meaningful way.

Then let's see: tax reform with cuts for the 'rich' hmmm I can see Democrats filibustering that for much wanted media attention. No matter the details, no tax cut for the rich hysteria I can see it already.

Anti-trade legislation? Well, that will be a civil war within the GOP itself. Cut Medicare/Medicaid/SS...yeah good luck with that. Everything will be stopped and obstructed to no end.

It makes the fact that Obama was able to herd cats and pass the few things he wanted in those short 2 years even more incredible.

I'm 19:15, and I don't entirely disagree with this as a general concept. But when even a willing Congress can barely get it together to pass a law, there's a problem. And our government is very much structured to make it extremely difficult to pass laws in a way pretty much no other modern democracy is.

Sorry. That is no excuse. His executive orders were way over the line.

Anonymous wrote:
You know. Not making new laws is in fact a reasonable choice. The idea that the President should make his own laws via executive order because the congress will not give him the laws he wants is an abuse of power. The congress by not saying yes said no.

Obama has essentially done what a child does when the child wants something and the parents don't give it to him. The child went around the parents and got what they wanted. When the parents see what the child did the child should get in trouble.

I'm 19:15, and I don't entirely disagree with this as a general concept. But when even a willing Congress can barely get it together to pass a law, there's a problem. And our government is very much structured to make it extremely difficult to pass laws in a way pretty much no other modern democracy is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well said. Unfortunately, the current administration was so aggressive in executive actions and discretion that it has set the bar for the Trump admin. I expect to hear a lot of executive actions justified by 'Obama did it before us'. You reap what you sow I guess. Bush II stretched executive authority, and Obama ran with that hard.

I suppose Congressional dysfunction had nothing to do with Obama's use of executive action...

Our government needs to function. If it doesn't function one way, it'll function another way. But as Obama has discovered, courts trump the other two branches. If Trump chooses to go forward with executive actions, he too will discover that.

Different PP. I completely understand why Obama made the choices he did, but it doesn't mean that they would not have had potentially risky consequences. The American system of government is designed to be very slow moving and to place high hurdles in front of doing anything. One can argue that it's actually become outdated with regard to enabling modern governance. There was always the risk that Congress could simply refuse to govern, and back in the 1780s when the Constitution was written that was not seen as the crisis it is today.

The fact that there was some justification for Obama's actions does not change their consequence with respect to Constitutional checks and balances. More and more, I think it's a real question as to whether we need a new Constitutional convention. That seems almost insane, but so does having a reality TV star with no governing experience as President.

Why? The courts are set to review Obama's executive order on immigration. That sounds like checks and balances in action. Congress's inability to pass laws is its own dysfunction. I don't know if we need a whole constitutional convention to resolve that. I mean what could a constitutional change do to force Congress to be reasonable and legislate?

You know. Not making new laws is in fact a reasonable choice. The idea that the President should make his own laws via executive order because the congress will not give him the laws he wants is an abuse of power. The congress by not saying yes said no.

Obama has essentially done what a child does when the child wants something and the parents don't give it to him. The child went around the parents and got what they wanted. When the parents see what the child did the child should get in trouble.

Umm. Immigration reform has been a big issue for years, decades even. Obama waited years and years for Congress to do something, to do what they're supposed to. Congress did nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well said. Unfortunately, the current administration was so aggressive in executive actions and discretion that it has set the bar for the Trump admin. I expect to hear a lot of executive actions justified by 'Obama did it before us'. You reap what you sow I guess. Bush II stretched executive authority, and Obama ran with that hard.

I suppose Congressional dysfunction had nothing to do with Obama's use of executive action...

Our government needs to function. If it doesn't function one way, it'll function another way. But as Obama has discovered, courts trump the other two branches. If Trump chooses to go forward with executive actions, he too will discover that.

Different PP. I completely understand why Obama made the choices he did, but it doesn't mean that they would not have had potentially risky consequences. The American system of government is designed to be very slow moving and to place high hurdles in front of doing anything. One can argue that it's actually become outdated with regard to enabling modern governance. There was always the risk that Congress could simply refuse to govern, and back in the 1780s when the Constitution was written that was not seen as the crisis it is today.

The fact that there was some justification for Obama's actions does not change their consequence with respect to Constitutional checks and balances. More and more, I think it's a real question as to whether we need a new Constitutional convention. That seems almost insane, but so does having a reality TV star with no governing experience as President.

Why? The courts are set to review Obama's executive order on immigration. That sounds like checks and balances in action. Congress's inability to pass laws is its own dysfunction. I don't know if we need a whole constitutional convention to resolve that. I mean what could a constitutional change do to force Congress to be reasonable and legislate?

You know. Not making new laws is in fact a reasonable choice. The idea that the President should make his own laws via executive order because the congress will not give him the laws he wants is an abuse of power. The congress by not saying yes said no.

Obama has essentially done what a child does when the child wants something and the parents don't give it to him. The child went around the parents and got what they wanted. When the parents see what the child did the child should get in trouble.

uh, you think child and parents is a good metaphor for our constitutional balance of power? scary.

Congress just isn't doing its job and has degenerated into an uncivil mess.

^^ PP again. I also think it would be valuable to re-examine Constitutional protections in the modern era. The courts are poised to spend the next several decades scrutinizing Amendments about quartering soldiers in order to make determinations about digital privacy and surveillance. You could argue that Congress could just legislate this stuff, but it would always run the risk of being trumped by the courts in increasingly byzantine ways. The inability to predict the internet is not a knock on the Founders or the first Constitutional convention, but it is a reason to considering revisiting it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well said. Unfortunately, the current administration was so aggressive in executive actions and discretion that it has set the bar for the Trump admin. I expect to hear a lot of executive actions justified by 'Obama did it before us'. You reap what you sow I guess. Bush II stretched executive authority, and Obama ran with that hard.

I suppose Congressional dysfunction had nothing to do with Obama's use of executive action...

Our government needs to function. If it doesn't function one way, it'll function another way. But as Obama has discovered, courts trump the other two branches. If Trump chooses to go forward with executive actions, he too will discover that.

Different PP. I completely understand why Obama made the choices he did, but it doesn't mean that they would not have had potentially risky consequences. The American system of government is designed to be very slow moving and to place high hurdles in front of doing anything. One can argue that it's actually become outdated with regard to enabling modern governance. There was always the risk that Congress could simply refuse to govern, and back in the 1780s when the Constitution was written that was not seen as the crisis it is today.

The fact that there was some justification for Obama's actions does not change their consequence with respect to Constitutional checks and balances. More and more, I think it's a real question as to whether we need a new Constitutional convention. That seems almost insane, but so does having a reality TV star with no governing experience as President.

Why? The courts are set to review Obama's executive order on immigration. That sounds like checks and balances in action. Congress's inability to pass laws is its own dysfunction. I don't know if we need a whole constitutional convention to resolve that. I mean what could a constitutional change do to force Congress to be reasonable and legislate?

You know. Not making new laws is in fact a reasonable choice. The idea that the President should make his own laws via executive order because the congress will not give him the laws he wants is an abuse of power. The congress by not saying yes said no.

Obama has essentially done what a child does when the child wants something and the parents don't give it to him. The child went around the parents and got what they wanted. When the parents see what the child did the child should get in trouble.

Anonymous wrote:
Why? The courts are set to review Obama's executive order on immigration. That sounds like checks and balances in action. Congress's inability to pass laws is its own dysfunction. I don't know if we need a whole constitutional convention to resolve that. I mean what could a constitutional change do to force Congress to be reasonable and legislate?

Constitutional reform could make it easier to pass legislation. It could also rectify some of the disenfranchisement that is currently encoded in the Electoral College and the balance of power between the House and Senate. I think the former is a bigger deal, though. Right now potential legislation has to pass through numerous hurdles. Even before the Republicans decided to become completely intransigent, it was extremely difficult to get anything through the Senate. It has long been a common joke among House staffers that they passed legislation to go watch it die in the Senate. There are some good reasons to make it hard to pass legislation, but there are also good reasons to consider changing that.

Overall, though, the Constitution was designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". Unfortunately, through a lot of gaming of the system we now have the "tyranny of the minority". Stepping beyond this election, a lot of national policy does not even remotely match the opinion of sometimes a super majority of Americans. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I dont' know if it would be better to "tweak the rules" or just try to find a better way to game them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well said. Unfortunately, the current administration was so aggressive in executive actions and discretion that it has set the bar for the Trump admin. I expect to hear a lot of executive actions justified by 'Obama did it before us'. You reap what you sow I guess. Bush II stretched executive authority, and Obama ran with that hard.

I suppose Congressional dysfunction had nothing to do with Obama's use of executive action...

Our government needs to function. If it doesn't function one way, it'll function another way. But as Obama has discovered, courts trump the other two branches. If Trump chooses to go forward with executive actions, he too will discover that.

Different PP. I completely understand why Obama made the choices he did, but it doesn't mean that they would not have had potentially risky consequences. The American system of government is designed to be very slow moving and to place high hurdles in front of doing anything. One can argue that it's actually become outdated with regard to enabling modern governance. There was always the risk that Congress could simply refuse to govern, and back in the 1780s when the Constitution was written that was not seen as the crisis it is today.

The fact that there was some justification for Obama's actions does not change their consequence with respect to Constitutional checks and balances. More and more, I think it's a real question as to whether we need a new Constitutional convention. That seems almost insane, but so does having a reality TV star with no governing experience as President.

Why? The courts are set to review Obama's executive order on immigration. That sounds like checks and balances in action. Congress's inability to pass laws is its own dysfunction. I don't know if we need a whole constitutional convention to resolve that. I mean what could a constitutional change do to force Congress to be reasonable and legislate?