Glenn Greenwald posts two comments by Democrats that got my attention.

[madfloridian]

He has a very long post up, but this caught my eye. He was referring to the use of executive orders, and concerned that Obama might use it too often.

Will Congress cede its powers?

The Lieberman controversy merely symbolizes how entrenched this problem has become. Just consider reports this week that Obama intends to use unilaterally issued, unchecked Executive Orders, rather than acts of Congress, to dictate outcomes on a whole range of politically controversial policy debates that are so plainly the province of the Congress to legislate -- from restrictions on stem-cell research funding to regulations governing aid to foreign family planning groups to oil drilling. Here's what Obama's transition chief, John Podesta, said about that:

There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that. I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set.

Podesta's infatuation with the power of executive orders recalls the infamous comment made by Clinton aide Paul Begala regarding the robust use of executive orders by the Clinton administration to make policy: "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool."

Yeh, Paul, those strokes of the pen are kinda cool. :eyes:

[MNReformer]

1. Can't Congress vote on the power of executive orders?

I mean, they are supposed to be the check on them.

[Selatius]

6. Executive Orders only apply to executive-level offices, such as FEMA, Dept. of Education, etc.

If you are a contractor and work for the federal government, then you must obey all relevant executive orders in addition to all federal laws still in effect in order to even qualify for a contract from a government department, agency, or bureau.

Congress has the power to pass laws affecting the entire country. The White House's rule-making power extends only as far as firms and people who deal directly with the federal government. A mom & pop grocery store would likely not be affected by executive orders, for instance, unless it actually has a federal contract with the government.

[MNReformer]

7. But what about Directive 51?

That makes the president a virtual dictator--having control over all three branches in a self-declared "emergency". So that affects everyone.

[Selatius]

10. I hope Obama withdraws that executive order. It's a pure power grab.

I don't see how such an executive order could not be challenged by the legislature or the judiciary if the president attempted to invoke it. If the legislature doesn't do anything, you're probably better off getting out of the country like the fortunate people who left Germany early before the camps came into operation to liquidate political dissidents and Jews.

[bluestateguy]

2. This country is in an economic emergency.

This is 1933 again.

We don't have time to deal with the plodding, bumbling pinheads in Congress.

The hearings, the amendments, the motions to recommit, more hearings, conference committees, more amendments and other such parliamentary bullshit.

We need to get things done and get things done now.

President Obama has a mandate from the people, and Congress can either follow the leader or get the fuck out of the way.

[madfloridian]

3. Wow.

:wow:

[MNReformer]

4. You're right, but what about into the future?

If every president can just decide what's what then Congress is, indeed, powerless. I think Obama needs to undo Bush's orders but then I think the whole executive order privilege should be revisited. I mean, the office really isn't that of "dictator", even though Dubya treated it that way and McCain and Palin wanted to expand their power.

[madfloridian]

5. Yes, I agree that some must be done.

Bush has done so much harm. But the tendency to shut Congress out is not good.

[bluestateguy]

8. If Clinton had manned up and done an executive order in 1993 we would have had gays in the military

An executive order as the commander in chief: this is the way it is fucking going to be, and anyone who doesn't like it may leave NOW.

But no, he wanted to appease the haters, the people who never showed him an ounce of respect, the uber-hawks and redneck gay bashers. He piddled around with a bullshit compromise that blew up in his face, and he was made to look like a panzy as a result.

In the long-run, he would have earned more respect by showing that there was a new sheriff in town and issuing an executive order overturning the ban.

[MNReformer]

9. But don't you agree this can get and has gotten out of hand?

Glenn prescribes: "That means restricting the President's role to what the Constitution prescribes and having Congress fulfill its assigned duties and perform its core functions."

I think that makes sense. So he can strip anything unconstitutional that Bush has done.

Glenn also notes:

"Central to the design of the republic is the power of the citizenry to remove all members of the House and 1/3 of the Senate every two years. That's the central mechanism by which the people, through their representatives in Congress, keep the Government responsive."

With that in mind, couldn't the decision of what to do with Lieberman be put to the people?

Here is a link to help us do that: http://tools.advomatic.com/7/kickjoe

Positions--supports or not:

http://tools.advomatic.com/7/kickjoe/totals?

Durbin supports Lieberman? Ouch.

[Chulanowa]

11. Leaving it all up to Congress isn't the way to go, either

'Cause congress makes damn sure that everything that doesn't directly fill their pockets takes a long, long time, being shuffled from committee to committee and getting altered and added to and subtracted from and voted on and then re-voted on after being re-written so the minority party won't whine so much...

Now, nobody's saying Obama should rule by fiat. but he does have control over the executive branch, and felxing some of that muscle in a smart way can't hurt.

[Libertyfirst]

12. Obama needs to use executive orders ot counterman executive orders made by Bush.

The emphasis on the use of executive orders by the Obama has focused on ways of quickly reversing many the the executive orders of the Bush administration and Obama's desire to to this as soon as possible. Executive orders of one of the principal means whereby a President exercises his legal authority as Chief Executive. They can be abused, as Bush has done, but executive orders are an essential means of both leading and governing. Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee, or some others have had too much, but I think it might be advisable to see how Obama uses executive orders before we wet our pants. Actually, I think DU might be very pleased with his use if he employs it to act quickly on campaign promises.

[mmonk]

13. My thoughts as well even though I believe in limitations

to the executive branch.

[MiniMe]

14. I agree, which means that the repukes will all of a sudden want to stop them

Transparent bunch of hypocrites that they are.

[madfloridian]

15. That's sort of what I was trying to say above.

To roll back what Bush has put into effect...that would not bother so much.

[gratuitous]

16. They just now discovered this?

And gee, it's so coincidental that the right wing dumbasses are going to make a big issue out of this just as a Democrat ascends to the White House. Not a peep out of these motherfuckers when Bush was merrily raping the constitution, the laws passed by Congress and the will of the people with his executive orders and signing statements.