Posted on 11/18/2010 10:10:08 AM PST by My Favorite Headache
The liberal Center for American Progress doesn’t believe significant GOP gains in the House and Senate should stop the President from implementing more of his polices. The group released a report Tuesday suggesting ways Obama can bypass Congress to accomplish a progressive agenda, and it cites the president’s power as commander-in-chief to make its point.
“I think most of the conversation since the election has been about how President Obama adjusts to the new situation on Capitol Hill,” Center for American Progress head and former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta told the Daily Caller. “While that’s an important conversation, it simply ignores the president’s ability to use all levels of his power and authority to move the country forward.”
How does one “move the country forward”? In the center’s report, Podesta explains that Obama can use executive orders, rulemaking, and even the armed forces “to accomplish important change” and that such means “should not be underestimated.”
What exactly does Podesta think the president should use such powers to “accomplish”? Among others, the report suggests “job creation,“ ”quality affordable health care,“ ”sustainable security,“ and ”a clean energy future.”
The report cites specific goals such as mitigating the effects of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, supporting a Palestinian state, and reducing greenhouse gasses by 17 percent by 2020.
“The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy,” Podesta writes. ”Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still.”
Statement from John D. Podesta November 15, 2010
In the aftermath of this month’s midterm congressional elections, pundits and politicians across the ideological spectrum are focusing on how difficult it will be for President Barack Obama to advance his policy priorities through Congress. Predictions of stalemate abound. And some debate whether the administration should tack to the left or to the center and compromise with or confront the new House leadership.
As a former White House chief of staff, I believe those to be the wrong preoccupations. President Obama’s ability to govern the country as chief executive presents an opportunity to demonstrate strength, resolve, and a capacity to get things done on a host of pressing challenges of importance to the public and our economy. Progress, not positioning, is what the public wants and deserves.
The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy. These authorities can be used to ensure positive progress on many of the key issues facing the country through:
* Executive orders * Rulemaking * Agency management * Convening and creating public-private partnerships * Commanding the armed forces * Diplomacy
The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through these powers should not be underestimated. President Bush, for example, faced a divided Congress throughout most of his term in office, yet few can doubt his ability to craft a unique and deeply conservative agenda using every aspect of the policymaking apparatus at his disposal. And, after his party lost control of Congress in 1994, President Clinton used executive authority and convening power to make significant progressive change. For instance, he protected more great spaces in the lower 48 states than any president since Theodore Roosevelt, established for the first time significant protections for Americans’ medical privacy, and urged the creation of the Welfare-to-Work Partnership that enlisted the help of 20,000 businesses in moving more than 1 million welfare recipients into the workforce.
The upshot: Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still. This administration has a similar opportunity to use available executive authorities while also working with Congress where possible. At the Center for American Progress, we look forward to our nation continuing to make progress.
Read the full report (pdf)
Download the executive summary (pdf)
Download the report to e-readers and mobile devices from Scribd
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Megan Smith (health care, education, economic policy) 202.741.6346 or msmith@americanprogress.org
Print: Anna Soellner (foreign policy and security, energy) asoellner@americanprogress.org
Print: Raúl Arce-Contreras (ethnic media, immigration) 202.478.5318 or rarcecontreras@americanprogress.org
Radio: Laura Pereyra 202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org
TV: Andrea Purse 202.741.6250 or apurse@americanprogress.org
Web: Erin Lindsay 202.741.6397 or elindsay@americanprogress.org http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/executive_orders.html/#statement
Oh, calm down.
close except where you say “an officer can’t sleep with somebody under their command, but the officer could still sleep with that person if they wanted to - they’d just lose their job.”
They are subject to the UCMJ and there have been plenty of cases where officers have gotten much worse then “losing their job” for fraternization. Including fines, jail time, loss of rank, Bad Conduct Discharges (which are punitive and carry a severe burden when attempting to find a job outside), etc
Are you fine with generals and admirals ordering their men to mutiny because the flag officers are not sure where Hussein was born?
I view your view as imaginary.
Thanks for that explanation.
This is why the UCMJ’s definitions for what constitutes a “lawful order” is so critical - and why it is unconscionable that Judge Denise Lind in her ruling on Lakin used her OWN list of criteria rather than working directly from the descriptions (elements) included in the UCMJ’s Article 92, which Lakin was accused of violating.
Article 92 says that an order is lawful if it is not contrary to law or the Constitution and is not given by someone acting beyond their authority. (Going from memory here so if I forgot something it’s an innocent mistake.)
Lind used the criteria that it’s lawful if it has to be obeyed, which is totally different.
Though what you just said makes me wonder about something. If an officer is required to discern the lawfulness of the order, then is an officer still required to obey an order that is unlawful because it is given by a de facto officer and is thus given by somebody acting beyond their legitimate authority? Are officers still required to obey orders from a de facto officer above them, or are they required to discern the lawfulness of the orders if there is reason for them to suspect it is a de facto officer and not a legitimate one?
Should the Armed Forces of the United States obey their orders from the civilians at DOD or not?
What criteria are you basing your comparison on?
How do deployment orders and wasting an Iraqi village compare with an order to turn on a “shower” that - oh, by the way, will gas to death a bunch of Jews?
Welcome back.
So when they signed on to be an officer they knew what the conditions were and if they weren’t willing to live with that they will suffer penalties.
Any employer can stipulate the behavioral conditions for employment. If there’s a rule that you don’t talk about your sex life or leanings at work, that’s a rule that can be made by an employer. The difficult part for the military is that the employees bunk together so if there’s a rule about behavior it impacts so much of the employee’s life. But that’s a condition of employment that the person knows before they sign up for the job - just like the condition that superiors not sleep with their subordinates. It’s a free world; they can sleep with who they like, but that doesn’t mean it will be without consequence in their employment.
Is that your understanding?
it matters not where Obama was born he is not a natural born citizen.
Yep, he warned us about what he intended to do. But most people didn’t listen; they voted because Obama was so cool. Ice cold is more like it.
Yep, he warned us about what he intended to do. But most people didn’t listen; they voted because Obama was so cool. Ice cold is more like it.
Obeying an unlawful order is a special situation for the officer class. Their oath specifically excludes the requirement to ‘follow the orders of the President and those appointed over them’ (sic). However, they still fall under the UCMJ and therefore when they refuse an order can fase article 15/captain’s mast/officer hours (depending on service they give it different names - it’s all article 15 UCMJ). They can refuse the article and demand a CM - then the prosecutor gets involved. If it was truly an unlawful order at that time it may come out in the investigation and the original order giver may be charged. As I recall there have been cases where both cases proceeded in parallel and in some cases both were found guilty and the lower officer was later acquitted on appeal using the verdict of the 2nd trial to overturn their own. In the end - unless someone is telling you to rape, murder, pillage - you probably won’t win the case. So the answer is follow the order and submit your protest in parrallel.
The oath runs in parallel, by the way with the fact that officer appointments and promotions while made by the president, are approved by congress. GHW signed mine and somewhere I have some of the radio traffic where the promotions were transmitted by SecNav after review and approval by congress - which until you get to the stars are usually rubber stamps, though some do have help that others don’t.
It’s Lakin’s right to disobey and frankly I think he’s courageous in doing what he believes - but he will likely be found guilty. The military isn’t the civilian world. They only need to show he disobeyed a direct order to meet the requirements of the guilty verdict. He must prove it is an illegal order, a much higher bar to meet. The military will do what it needs to in order to ensure good order and discipline. In my view it isn’t their place to question O’s eligibility it is Congress’. Plus I’m not really happy with the entire court system punting on the whole “standing” BS. I’m a citizen I have standing on matters of constitutional importance - period.
Now there is no reason why senior brass could not petition congress about concerns related to good order and discipline related to this issue. However, they put themselves between a rock and a hard place and end up creating more havoc than what currently exists if they aren’t careful.
It doesn’t make me happy or proud of the situation - but I do understand where the two sides are coming from in the service.
I really could use those strawberries now...
What exactly does Podesta think the president should use such powers to "accomplish"? Among others, the report suggests "job creation," "quality affordable health care," "sustainable security," and "a clean energy future." The report cites specific goals such as mitigating the effects of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, supporting a Palestinian state, and reducing greenhouse gasses by 17 percent by 2020.Careful what ya wish for, John-boy. Thanks My Favorite Headache.
pretty much - and the courts have ruled continously (sic) that they are in special conditions which allow for special rules. Remember until the last century the military wasn’t allowed to vote - it was considered to be detrimental to good order and discipline if they may have voted in a differnt way from the fella that commands them now.
We gave 3 days bread and water as a regular captains mast punishment - first offenders got the message pretty quick that the CO was in charge..2nd offenders (sometimes 1st depending on the issue) + 45 days restriction to ship + 45 days at 1/2 pay, + a reduction in rank....with the 3 days BW ... THAT leaves a mark. If they got their 3rd they were on their way to an admin sep with an Other than Honorable - Cap’n didn’t screw around, but he treated everyone the same.
All this with no rules of evidence required just CO’s call - but if they wanted that they were always allowed to ask for a CM - where the punishments went through the roof if found guilty.
By the way Sodomy and adultery are still a punishable UCMJ offenses and include consensual unwed relations and way more than just butt buddies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.