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
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
That order to go against the Constitution and “ THE PEOPLE “ would be a crime far and above high crimes and misdemeanors
Read the dayum oath they take dude. Then read the Constitution. Keep asking the questions you do and you keep showing how the population of this country allowed someone other then “we the people” to make the rules. The executive branch has already made the Congress nearly a neutered entity.
When Scotus illegally usurps Congress and forces the Armed Forces to recruit, retain open homosexuals, should officers refuse to recruit, retain homos?
Podesta has always been a closet commie, but he has finally come out as a pure totalitarian thug.
Way to go Clinton, Obama. Your boy has just revealed the truth about the Democratic Left mindset - Hitler and Stalin would be proud of all of you.
Loyal Americans are pissed. Nov. 2012 is only two years away and if you thought the tidal wave of this November was something, the next one would even make Noah weep in fear.
Let’s say a senior enlisted disagrees with an officer who agrees with Scotus. Say the officer thinks faggotry in the ranks is kinda cool, despite the clear authority of Congress to determine the rules and regs regarding homos in the Armed Forces.
The enlisted man has sworn both to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of officers. What should the senior enlisted man do?
So the senior enlisted man should refuse to recruit homosexuals? He should disobey the orders of his officers, DOD, the Supreme Court?
Our volunteer military better not turn on us...
What if they do?I’m a skilled marksman but I can’t fight an attack helicopter or a tank with my sniper rifle.
Defend the Constitution
>>Let’s say a senior enlisted disagrees with an officer who agrees with Scotus.<<
Lets say you go read the Constitution and stop being sloppy on it. If the Constitution does not specifically give the Federal Government authority it belongs to the States. If the Constitution protects specific rights the States can’t touch it.
Indeed and this oath for an officer is different from the enlisted oath which includes the phrase “...obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me...”
I, (NAME), 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
I didn’t think you could answer my question. This is not the forum for those who cannot defend their positions.
As a former tank commander...they will not obey Obama if he turns on the American people. Some of the combat support might support him..but the majority of combat soldiers will not.
It would be an interesting study to see the promotions and assigments of personnel since Obama was illegally sworn in.
If it’s the law, then there’s little the military can do except hope that the people push back to change the law. Our military is not Nancy Pelosi’s social experiment.
If it’s not an immediate critical issue he or she should first try to get a ruling on the constitutionality. If that option is not allowed him/her then yes, he/she should disobey, because the failure of the process to work is further evidence of foul play.
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.