Obama true to his word on abortion

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Mr. Obama, otherwise known as Bush III.

I would imagine you are in an extraordinarily tiny minority if you think Obama=Bush III.

Regardless, you seem to be conflating two very distinct issues here:

1. Whether Obama will increase the powers of the executive branch in a manner similar to Bush; and
2. Whether Obama will work in a bipartisan manner.

With respect to 1, you haven't presented anything that, to date, suggests he will operate even remotely like Bush. In fact, what you have presented indicates the exact opposite. He is overturning executive orders implemented by Bush that had the effect of expanding executive powers. Whether or not Obama says "I get to dictate legislative terms because I won," hardly indicates an expansion of executive power. The Constitution clearly permits Obama to be heavily involved in determining whether legislation will pass or fail, and executives have played a role in negotiating terms of legislation since Washington. You may not like the fact that Obama has that job, but that is what we elected him to do.

With respect to #2, nobody can say for certain as of yet. His comment of "because I won" isn't a great indicator of bipartisanship. I don't know whether or not it was a calculated comment (to show Republicans they can't walk all over him and that they are wrong to perceive him as a neophyte), or whether it was a slip of the tongue that reveals what he really thinks. I doubt anybody knows at this point. He has been president for less than a week.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In fact, what you have presented indicates the exact opposite. He is overturning executive orders implemented by Bush that had the effect of expanding executive powers.

Heh, he's using his power to restrict his power? Is that like God creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

Ha.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, he's using his power to restrict his power? Is that like God creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

Ha.

Why is this so tough to understand? You seemed to "get it" just a page back. What happened?

Query: Abraham Lincoln expanded executive authority when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus. Would an executive order revoking Lincoln's order: a) be an inappropriate expansion of executive authority; or b) be a use of executive authority to curtail executive authority?

Get back to me when you have something intelligent to say.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why is this so tough to understand? You seemed to "get it" just a page back. What happened?

Query: Abraham Lincoln expanded executive authority when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus. Would an executive order revoking Lincoln's order: a) be an inappropriate expansion of executive authority; or b) be a use of executive authority to curtail executive authority?

Get back to me when you have something intelligent to say.

He effectively authorized supporting abortion through executive fiat, I see that as an expansion of executive power, even if it is through the revocation of the order reinstating the revocation of the original order. I simply disagree with your analysis and apologetic argument.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why is this so tough to understand? You seemed to "get it" just a page back. What happened?

Query: Abraham Lincoln expanded executive authority when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus. Would an executive order revoking Lincoln's order: a) be an inappropriate expansion of executive authority; or b) be a use of executive authority to curtail executive authority?

Get back to me when you have something intelligent to say.

Heh, vintage Cali.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, vintage Cali.

Perfect non-answer. Vintage Tex.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

He effectively authorized supporting abortion through executive fiat, I see that as an expansion of executive power, even if it is through the revocation of the order reinstating the revocation of the original order. I simply disagree with your analysis and apologetic argument.

What I'm saying is, it's not asserting any new power the executive didn't already have. This new abortion order is only new in the sense that it renews a practice discontinued in 2000.

This idea the the President can shrink his own executive power by fiat is ridiculous, like putting a prisoner in a cell to which he possesses the key. The president may choose not to exercise a specific power, but that doesn't mean it isn't still there.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Perfect non-answer. Vintage Tex.

LOL. It warms my heart to see that you two are still doing the forbidden dance.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

LOL. It warms my heart to see that you two are still doing the forbidden dance.

To borrow Hitchens, "This is now the joke stupid people laugh at."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

What I'm saying is, it's not asserting any new power the executive didn't already have. This new abortion order is only new in the sense that it renews a practice discontinued in 2000.

This idea the the President can shrink his own executive power by fiat is ridiculous, like putting a prisoner in a cell to which he possesses the key. The president may choose not to exercise a specific power, but that doesn't mean it isn't still there.

No, Tex. You miss the point entirely. Whether or not a president DOES do something has nothing at all to do with whether or not he has authority to do something.

I am surprised you don't get this. A baptist could baptize you, for example. He did, in fact, baptize you. But would it mean he had authority to baptize you? Of course not. The act and the authority are two separate issues.

If Bush wrongfully expanded the powers of the executive (and "expanded" isn't even a good word because the powers didn't necessarily expand so much as Bush just took actions outside of his authority), then someone revoking what Bush did is not akin to locking oneself in a prison cell with the key. It is a recognition that the prior act was improper, and a reassertment that the executive will no longer operate in that inappropriate territory.