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
Thanks... pingy for after work...
>>Don’t worry. Lakin will be found guilty, for guilty he is.<<
Right there ladies and gentlemen is the attitude that will threaten the masses of “we the people” when push comes to shove. The military will follow orders and we are sol if we are not well armed.
Talked to a soldier, airman or Marine lately? The Commandant of the Marine Corps has said openly gay troops affects combat operations, and has data to back it up. Do you want our guys to lose?
Once again, I was OPPOSING openly gay service in the military. We should not be concerning ourselves with “gay rights” within the military. I said in my first sentence this will result in cliques of gay activists in the ranks. These people will drive out heteros and cause all kinds of harrassment and discrimination.
That is nice! Thanks for the tip.
If Hussein is not President, is not every law, exec order, etc that he signed also illegal?
You might take a look at post #137 as well.
You say you want a rev oh loo shun yeah yeah
We’d all love to see the plan
These people are nuts. Crazy. They’re the ones who need to be behind bars . . . and I don’t mean taverns.
Ladies and gentlemen, should an officer of the Armed Forces refuse to follow or implement any order or policy of the Congress or Courts that he considers to be unconstitutional?
Yes, and they are thrilling reads with great character development. I have read them all twice.
I hope his new novel, Castigo Cay, comes out soon.
>>If Hussein is not President, is not every law, exec order, etc that he signed also illegal?<<
They would not be legal if it was proven that he was ineligible to be president. Don’t even think that that is going to come out. Even Republicans won’t go there. It would be chaos in this country. That will be protected till forever if the general public doesn’t force something.
I think he will be forced out for something else to protect from any illegitimacy issues coming out..
Research the Roman emperor Caracalla..he was not a natural born citizen..his mother was Syrian. His emperor father married her after his Roman wife died.
He murdered his brother, slaughtered 20,000 political opponents, gave citizenship to every one in the Empire to increase tax revenue to support his massive public spending.
Gibbons tells us this was the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire.
Vattel tells us in his Law of Nations:
Natural born citizens are those born from citizen parents. A society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise. A society should desire this.
>>Ladies and gentlemen, should an officer of the Armed Forces refuse to follow or implement any order or policy of the Congress or Courts that he considers to be unconstitutional?<<
Yes. Read the oath of office they take.
sounds like dictatorship
It didn’t prevent Macarthur/Patton from this (I hate wikipedia but it was quicker for me to grab from there than get my reference books out):
In July 1932, Patton served under Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur as a major commanding 600 troops, including the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. On July 28, MacArthur ordered these troops to advance on protesting veterans known as the “Bonus Army” in Washington, D.C. with tear gas and bayonets.
A good soldier follows orders, a good officer knows a lawful from unlawful order. Unfortunately as a prior officer myself, I saw many who cared more for their “career” and political expediency than for their duty, stewardship, and honor.
Nice way to enter FR, by calling some of us naive.
My dh just retired from the Marines, and every single Officer we know holds allegiance first and foremost to the founding Constitution. Wait...I think there was one who voted for the prØmpter, and he came around rather quickly to see the error in his choice.
It is probable that Scotus will soon usurp Article I Sections 1 & 8, and make law. It will illegally take on the Congressional power to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces;” and order the military to keep, enlist and commission open homosexuals.
Should the Supreme Court do this, should an officer comply with this unconstitutional diktat any more than comply with an order to deploy to Iraq?
Yep.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely; and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; So help me God.
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.