"Today, I signed Executive Order 13510, authorizing eligibility for all Americans to Medicare..."

[berni_mccoy]

"regardless of age. I do this in order to end the healthcare crisis in the United States which is leading to the deaths of more than 18 thousand Americans per year. I leave it to Congress to address the budgetary and finance changes this will require, but as effective immediately, all Americans are currently eligible to enroll in Medicare.".

That's how Obama ought to begin his speech tomorrow.

And, it appears, he has the power to do this. This would be no more bold an executive order than the emancipation Proclamation, initiating a war with another country as was how the Kosovo War was began. The basis of the use is to further a law put forth by Congress in order to immediately save the lives of Americans.

In order to override this executive order, Congress will need to have a supermajority willing to overturn it.

If Obama is really staking his Presidency on this, this is how he can go about it.

[bobbolink]

1. Would that he had the spine.

:(

[whistler162]

44. No that would be spineless at its most spineless!

Create the law, pass the law, have him sign the law!

That is the only way to do it correctly any other way is spineless republicanistic garbage!

[bobbolink]

55. Too bad we can't unrec a single post

x(

[Statistical]

75. So you believe in operating outside the law as long as "it is our guy" doing it.

Funny thing... people on the other side believes the exact same thing.

See the problem in that?

[bobbolink]

99. .

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[krawhitham]

108. How is that outside the law if he is leagally allowed to do it?

[whistler162]

103. Well you could have edited your posted if you had reread it soon

enough.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. Odd attitude for someone whose avatar is Harry Truman

the president who desegregated the Armed Forces by executive order when segregation was still the law in half the country.

By the way, before issuing the executive order, Truman called in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and told them that anyone who refused to obey this order would be court-martialed for insubordination.

That's spine.

[bobbolink]

114. Excellent! Thank you, Lydia... history can be a great thing.

I appreciate knowing this.

:toast: :hi:

[WI_DEM]

84. So what other presidents "had the spine" to do this?

And I'm not sure he can just do this.

[bobbolink]

100. Ever heard of FDR?

[whistler162]

104. Was it between 1937 and 1945?

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/roosevelt.html please enlighten us!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. Harry Truman

See my post #112

[joeycola]

2. Lovely

[ddeclue]

3. Umm except that he can't do this unilaterally via executive order...

THAT would be an unconstitutional healthcare reform...

Changes to Medicare's eligibility require an act of Congress. Sorry.

The good news is that there IS a bill for that - it's called HR676.

[berni_mccoy]

6. I disagree. Only two executive orders have ever been turned over and it was because

they were making new law, not modifying an existing one.

Furthermore, there is a strong history of support for Executive Orders when they save lives.

If wars can be started based on it in order to save lives, then surely and age limit can be changed.

[ddeclue]

8. And THIS would be #3.. It's pretty clear from Article I that CONGRESS controls the power of purse

and this CLEARLY would violate Congress' power of the purse. Do you really think that even Democratic members of Congress would not be offended by such a naked power grab? This would result in a Supreme Court case at the least, impeachment at worst.

[berni_mccoy]

11. Again, he'd have to leave the financing up to the Congress, BUT

he executes the law and if he decides to allow any age to enroll, that's his Executive Power.

Congress would be forced to starve Medicare, which they won't do.

[ddeclue]

12. Umm and you don't think that adding 200 million people to Medicare might spend some more money?

The law explicitly specifies the age of eligibility and you can't just change that with an Executive Order...

Please folks READ the Constitution, take a government class... you can't just make crap up out of whole cloth and act like Sarah Palin and the nuts on the other side.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Sure it will change how money is spent. But that didn't stop Reagan

when he banned the use of federal money for Abortions and it didn't stop Clinton when he allowed federal funds to be used for abortions. No law was passed, just who it applied to changed.

Same thing when Kennedy used an Executive Order for federal housing when it was opened up to all races, not just whites. That dramatically increased the spending, the same way ending the age requirement on Medicare will.

[ddeclue]

28. Not the same thing - you are talking about at least 100 billion a year

a billion here a billion there.. pretty soon it adds up to real money - I think Congress would get wise to it...

:eyes:

Take two billion from petty cash and call the doctor in the morning..

:crazy:

[berni_mccoy]

31. How much are the lives of more than 18,000 Americans dying each year worth?

Are you really going to start putting a price on life?

[ddeclue]

33. NOT the question at hand. Iam IN FAVOR of HR676 actually.

and will settle for a public option in HR3200 if necessary but the question at HAND is whether a President could unilaterally make such a change via executive order. The answer is NO.

Doug D.

[berni_mccoy]

38. But you ARE arguing that it would be too much money for an executive order to accomplish

when there is no precedence for spending amount to be a factor in an EO being Constitutional or not.

[ddeclue]

42. sorry if you've drunk the koolaid but anyone who knows anything knows better

than to assume that a program that would be right after Defense, Social Security and debt service in terms of dollars spent would be treated by Congress as an "insignificant" intrusion on its power of the purse.

Obama would be impeached - by DEMOCRATS - if he actually engaged in your fantasy.

What we NEED is realism, not nonsensical fantasies that are unConstitutional and would cause a Presidential meltdown for Obama.

Do you think that Obama is just stupid or something and has "overlooked the obvious"?

:crazy:

How's THIS for recent on-point precedent?

Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is the legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress.

PLEASE get yourself to a government class or go buy a book on basic civics or something.

[Statistical]

71. Sorry not constitutional.

Would be overwhelming unpopular, almost guarantee a supreme court challenge, would alineate democrats from white house.

Impeachment is likely (even if Obama isn't convicted) it would be massive distraction and make it nearly impossible for any work to be completed. Either way Obama ends up resigning, loses the election in 2012, or is convicted and Bidden becomes a lame duck replacement.

It would be spun as Obama acting like a tyrant.

[druidity33]

91. HR 676

has the potential to SAVE almost $400 billion per year. It is essentially a Medicare-for-All bill. Why do you think it will COST over $100 billion a year? As far as i know the CBO has not yet finished its analysis...

I think HR 3200 would be a scam. No reform there, unfortunately.

[ddeclue]

97. Umm because it will but PASSING HR676 is NOT the same thing as the President stroking an EO.

:eyes:

[druidity33]

101. where do you get your numbers?

Because i'm going off a Princeton study. I will use CBO numbers when they become available.

Again i ask, where do you get your $100 billion a year cost number from?

Just something you heard?

:eyes:

[Threedifferentones]

25. Same thing as war

Yet Congress has not declared war, technically, since WW2. Congress just funds occupations ordered by our president, even though that ain't exactly how you'd expect the process to go when ya read our Constitution, don't ya know now.
Whoops, there goes the Sarah Palin in those of us who want Obama to be aggressive again, eh?

Now here's for the perfectly reasonable side of things: if president Obama simply ordered the defense department to begin turning over billions of dollars ear marked for wars that harm way more than they help, the DoD will say yes sir. With billions, if not trillions, of extra dollars coming in within a few years, and indefinitely after that, quality healthcare for everyone is easily achievable.

Not saying I'd do it if I were Obama, but considering what GWB and other presidents have gotten away with, it is not ridiculous.

Take a history class and you will know that historically American presidents have blatantly trampled on the people's rights. During WW2, for instance, the government interned citizens of Japanese descent, many of whom never fully recovered their homes or livelihoods. Reagan was caught giving money to terrorists, and giving chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. Bill Clinton almost lied under oath. GWB seems to have presided over a massive and systematic expansion of government by actively appointing political loyalists to the every level of most every department. He and LBJ certainly lied to the American people to get us into wars we now regret.

These are just a few obvious and famous examples from recent presidents, and you make a fuss about someone suggesting Obama help tens of millions of Americans. Please think before you post.

[ddeclue]

26. Umm not so much NO...

No President has EVER unilaterally "declared" (sic) war since WWII without so much as a head fake towards Congress by asking for the blank check first.

You can stop being silly now...

:eyes:

[movonne]

41. How about doing in degrees...start lowing the age to be on Medicare...

[ddeclue]

43. AGAIN - The PRESIDENT can NOT do this UNILATERALLY.

CONGRESS must do it.

:argh:

[Statistical]

80. You don't get it... apparently (SOME) on DU favors dictators who operate above the rule of law...

as long as he is "our dictator".

Of course the "other side" will never catch on that their guy can operate above the law.

That maybe it might lead to an escalation which each succeeding party uses more and more power operating outside the law until the SCOTUS and Congress are little more than a rubber stamp for an all power executive.

What bad could possibly come from that?

Edited: to add word (SOME) to clarify.

[fascisthunter]

83. why are you always disparaging DU and Duers

why are you here if you dislike it so much?

[Statistical]

87. Always? Quite a stretch.

There are some people here who share the opinion that it is a horrible idea for President to pass law by slight of hand without Congress. I just am surprised how much there is support for Obama to act above the law.

The same people who would have be outraged if (and when) Bush did operated outside the law would have no problem if Obama did it.
I find that attitude to be non-progressive. If dissent in the echo chamber scares you there is always the ignore button.

[Xithras]

69. If the age limit was voted on by Congress, the President can't overturn it.

The limitation on executive orders is that they cannot "make new law". Arbitrarily overturning a congressionally authorized law qualifies as "making law".

You would have a point if Congress hadn't specified an age limit in the original Medicare legislation and the HHS had imposed the age 65 limit itself, but the cutoff at 65 years was written into the original law, passed by Congress, and enacted as the law of the land. EO's cannot rewrite existing law. They CAN "reinterpret" existing law by applying it in a way that twists its original intent (something Bush loved to do), but I don't see any way to reinterpret a 65 year age cutoff to cover everybody.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

110. Funding

The POTUS can issue all the Executive Orders he likes, but if Congress doesn't fund it, it's pretty much a moot point.

[MineralMan]

4. Excellent idea!

[JBoy]

5. Well, that's how Cheney would do it, if he gave a shit about people.

[RagAss]

37. Yes..Bizarro World Cheney would do this.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. If he did that, he would win a landslide in 2012 that would make Zombie Reagan green with jealousy

And if he rolled the tax cuts for the rich back to the Eisenhower era (after eliminating all the loopholes) he would probably guarantee the 2016 election as well.

Why did FDR get elected 4 times? Because he delivered on his promises. Obama needs to quit worrying about "bipartisanship" and "teams of rivals" and start reading up on the last century's greatest president.

(and no, that wasn't Bill Clinton, despite what the DLC'ers would have you believe)

[WhiteTara]

9. Be still my beating heart!

Your lips to the president's ear and then the words from his mouth. My prayers answered.

[wroberts189]

10. Great post. I like the way you think :) KNR nt

[flvegan]

13. Wouldn't that be nice.

[usregimechange]

14. That would not be good at all, I will not support destroying democracy to accomplish reform

[ipaint]

19. No, we'll just finish off democracy for good while not accomplishing reform.

We have a corporate controlled government and supreme court. Democracy has been destroyed and we weren't the ones who threw out the rule book.

[t0dd]

29. democracy was destroyed long ago: when private insurance bought our congressmen. nt

[usregimechange]

15. Unrec

[ipaint]

16. That is like day dreamng about winning the lottery.

I wish he was that kind of leader. He isn't.

[dhpgetsit]

17. That would be SO awesome (and sensible)!!!

[librechik]

18. if only

[ejpoeta]

20. oh, that would be SOOOO great!! why the hell can't he do that!!

[Statistical]

73. Just what pesky thing called the Constitution.

Hell if we get rid of the Constitution then Obama could be "President for life". No need to worry about next President being a Republican.

[mirrera]

21. Brilliant.

[eminentcreativity]

23. How much money did he get from the health insurance and drug companies in 2008?

Serious question.

Better yet, how much money did the Democratic Party receive from those industries, and would Obama do anything to risk that money switching from the Dems to the Republicans in 2010 and 2012?

Like firedoglake, I don't think the Democratic Party is willing to risk this.

They came into office in 2006 because Corporate America's contributions to Democrats skyrocketed. The donations didn't go up because corporate America thought the people supported the Democrats more. The people's support for the Democrats increased because corporate America's support of Democrats increased, causing the corporate media to extend the Democrats better coverage and worse coverage for the Republicans (see Mark Foley, etc), and that favorable coverage increased public support for the Democrats, which led to electoral success.

In 2008, the Democrats got even more corporate financial support, both Congressionally and Presidentially than the Republicans, which led to more media favoritism for the Democrats in the 2008 election cycle, greater public support for the Democrats, which led to more gains and a Presidential landslide.

The Democratic politicians know that corporate donations signal to the corporate media who to give better coverage, which results in more public support and ultimately electoral success.

That's really how corporate money influences elections, and the Democrats do not want to jeopardize it.

Obama would never say this for that reason.

But, don't completely blame them. Blame regular people for being so gullible that politicians are pigeonholed by the fear that corporate ads and corporate press releases called "television news" will work against them because the average person is so heavily reliant on television news that he is incapable of seeing through the lies.

If the American people were smarter and not so dependent on television, politicians would take more chances.

[horseshoecrab]

24. K&R !!! n/t

[Better Today]

27. Yep, I suspect that after Congress fails to accomplish meaningful

HCR, Obama will put in a signing statement as you suggest. It would be priceless. I wonder, could I be right? (hopefully) and does he have the cajones to do it?

[tritsofme]

30. You apparently have no idea what an executive order is. The POTUS does not change law by fiat.

George Bush would blush at your idea.

[harkadog]

36. If any President could do this we wouldn't have a need for a Congress

It is unconstitutional on its face. The examples listed by the OP were military measures taken by the President in his role as the commander-in-chief.

[PassingFair]

106. Bush created the "Faith-Based Initiatives" by fiat....

as I recall.

[Laelth]

32. Oh, you are a tease.

That is exactly what I want him to say.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Yo_Mama]

34. Please don't incite people to criticize the president

... for not doing what he constitutionally cannot do.

If you want Medicare for all, call your senators and representatives. Make the case. Contact the president's office and make your argument, because he does have a bully pulpit.

It is just not fair to create the impression that President Obama can do this, because he can't. Congress makes the laws. The Executive enforces them. The Executive does not have the power to modify Medicare eligibility unless Congress gives it to him by passing a law.

So, for instance, when you read Section 426 of Title 42 of the USC, which lays out the requirements for Medicare eligibility
see it here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc42.pt1.wais&start=10529469&SIZE=50124&TYPE=TEXT
the conditions are fixed, and no president has the ability to change that. If the president could, then he'd also have the authority to cancel out the whole program.

I don't know whether you know whether you are lying or not, but here is the text of the US Constitution and I suggest you read it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Aside from the few specific powers given to the presidency in Article II, presidential powers are restricted to carrying out the laws that Congress has passed.

[tritsofme]

35. It is often more fun to play pretend. nt

[horseshoecrab]

47. that's right. n/t

[scheming daemons]

39. Great idea....in a dictatorship. Completely unconstitutional in this country, however.

Read Article I of the Constitution.


What you propose is illegal and would not withstand a Court challenge.

[scheming daemons]

40. I love berni_mccoy... but 30+ recs for this OP show that most of DU doesn't even

...know their own Constitution.


...and that's sad.


The OP advocates, basically, the abolishment of Congress and the institution of Presidential fiat.... AKA, dictatorship.


That's not how we operate here. And it is sad that so many on this site think it is.

[onenote]

54. +1

[Statistical]

82. It is very sad.

Most people love the ease, security, and power of tyranny as long as it is "their guy" in charge.

Why worry about Congress, blue dogs, or getting the message out when Obama by weilding unlimited power can get everything done.

Of course they fail to realize that eventually someone from the other side will be in power and precedent will have been created.
Suddenly the tyranny is no longer as fun when the power not constrained by checks and balances is weilded by people with different viewpoint.

Of course the fix for that is "President for life"!

[ddeclue]

45. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 says NO this is unconstitutional!

This is for the benefit of the "civics" challenged here tonight who don't understand that only the CONGRESS has the "power of the purse".. :eyes:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_97_1374/

Facts of the Case:

This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act ("Act"). In the first, the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. In the second, the Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal.

Question:

Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?

Conclusion:

Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York, and its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.

[whistler162]

46. it would be a quick way to actually destroy his Presidency.....

verses the continual fictitious destruction of his Presidency delusionally dreamed up by supposed "Left wing" bloggers and commentators!

[librechik]

48. oh but declaring war by executive fiat is AOK

let's not challenge any of the last 6 presidents on that one.

But use the same rationale, a national emergency, for saving people?

Oh god no that must never happen.

the naysayers in this thread are pathetic.

[berni_mccoy]

49. yeah, I was beginning to wonder the same thing.

[tritsofme]

50. We are all Unitary Executives now, apparently.

But I doubt even they would dare claim such a power to change specific provisions in law without consulting Congress, as you might.

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Bush got permission from Congress before starting military operation in Iraq and Afghanistan

[librechik]

70. Getting Congress to fund your stupid "foreign adventures" is not the same as declaring war

He made the war first. Then Congress hurried to support his fiat so they wouldn't have to vote on "war." Because there was no way to prove a case for war.

That is a slimy reach around on the Constitution and you know it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. Congress specifically authorized the use of military force BEFORE any shots were fired:

Afghanistan: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.j.res.00064:

Iraq: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:

[librechik]

88. I repeat--anything less than a declaration of war by Congress is un-Constitutional

and we have been acting un-Constitutionally for decades, as regards the making of war. We have plenty of evidence to suggest the Bushies were intent on war long before any shots--including 9/11--were fired. You are being disingenuous.

[harkadog]

102. The Supreme Court has never agreed with you.

In 1970, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts challenged the Constitutionality of the Vietnam War (Massachusetts v. Laird, U.S. Sup. Ct. Nov. 9, 1970). It passed a law stating that no resident of Massachusetts "shall be required to serve" in the armed forces abroad if the armed hostility has not been declared a war by Congress. The attorney general of Massachusetts asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case to test the legality of the Vietnam War.

The Supreme Court declined by a six to three vote to hear the Massachusetts case. Also, in Berk v. Laird, 39 U.S.L.W. 2201 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 1970), the Court held that Congress had authorized through legislative acts the use of U.S. Armed Forces in Vietnam, thereby not requiring a formal declaration of war.

If the U.S. were to declare war on another nation, clauses in various treaties (NATO, SEATO) would be invoked and force every nation that had signed them to also declare war.

[librechik]

109. They made an excuse not to hear it. Constitutionality has never really been tested

illegal war illegal war war that is not defensive is illegal

[SammyWinstonJack]

111. +1 nt

[defendandprotect]

51. What a lovely dream . . . and 2.3 million new jobs would come with it!!

[jgraz]

52. First he'd actually have to be in favor of it.

You expect Obama to fight for Medicare for All? He's not even in favor of universal coverage.

[donheld]

53. You may say i'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

[Jim Lane]

56. A gross abuse of power with a noble goal is still an abuse.

This undemocratic proposal gets one of my rare Unrecs (I think this is only my second since the feature was introduced).

[TheKentuckian]

57. Unreccing due to a foolish and dangerous demand for the Imperial Presidency

Why in the world would any rational person desire to set up such a terrible precedent? You'd make the the next Reich Winger to take the White House our Lord and King. Hell, you'd allow Obama to be our Lord and King which is and should be unacceptable.

The logic is not only twisted but actually sprained. You are wanting to sneak around the process because it is deliberate and frustrating but would use the Constitution as toilet paper and sell out every soul for a short term victory. How long will we be allowed to vote for our Emperors? When the day comes that we no longer get to chose by Executive order then it will be to late to undue the disastrous trade made even for the best of reasons.

We should be demanding the EO's be reined in not expanded to control everything. Counting the votes is very frustrating at times but to allow that frustration to undo the whole process is very short sighted.

[berni_mccoy]

58. The precedence has already been set.

The starting of wars.

The building of the military.

This would be less abuse of power than has been applied in the past through use of EO.

[TheKentuckian]

76. Dude, you want to legitimize all such abuses and excuse it on grounds of doing the right thing

You are using the same rationale as Bush but simply applying it to a position that we support. What checks on this kingship do you propose to keep the next Emperor from going further down the rabbithole or just reversing what was established like all the other EO's?

You are calling for something insane and justifying it on the grounds of doing the right thing. As I have suspected, many just want a liberal Bush.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. He would be impeached and removed from office by the Democratic controlled Congress

They would not take too kindly to such a broad usurpation of legislation power.

[berni_mccoy]

60. LOL! They wouldn't impeach Bush, but they would Obama? You're fucking serious?

What high crime and misdemeanor would Obama have created?

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. Violation of Article 1, Section 9:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[berni_mccoy]

67. LOL.

[Vinca]

61. That one act would save so many lives.

I'd be signing up tomorrow.

[panzerfaust]

62. Brilliant

If only we had a president who would do such a thing

[pleah]

63. K& R

[Nye Bevan]

64. If a Republican became president in 2012

and by "executive order" *raised* the Medicare eligibility age to (let's say) 85, would that be constitutional? If not, how is your proposal constitutional? I understand the temptation to award dictatorial powers to the President when one of our guys is in power, but I kind of like the separation of powers.

[berni_mccoy]

66. The difference:

Lowering the age limit would stop a State of Emergency (more than 18,000 Americans are dying each year) and would immediately save lives.

Raising the age limit would create a State of Emergency and immediately kill people.

[Statistical]

72. where does the Constitution make that distinction?

If Obama did what you said he "could do" it would be the largest "land grab" of executive power ever.

It would make what Bush did look like an anthill. If not found unconstitutional any future President would act upon that precedent.

Illegal use of executive power = not ok
Illegal use of executive power to stop an emergency = ok.

[berni_mccoy]

74. It doesn't, but the National Emergency Act does

Obama could declare that the unnecessary deaths amount to a State of Emergency and therefore, he has a right under the NEA to enact this EO.

[Statistical]

77. NEA has limits like requiring they expire in 2 years.

"State of Emergency" is generally the first step on the road to fascism and tyranny.
Virtually all dictators did so for "the common good" and because of a "state of emergency".

Also in none of the 32 "state of emergency" declared via the NEA did the President use it to expend federal funds.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.pdf

[berni_mccoy]

78. It's not perfect, but it gets us to where we need to be. This is indeed a Crisis that has not been

seen since in this country.

[57_TomCat]

79. That would be a fast track...

to third world status as a country with bankruptcy as a nation a real possibility. Medicare is already a fiscal liability with no one willing to make the hard decisions to fix it. Why would you expect Obama to hitch his wagon to such a tired horse?

[Kaleva]

81. How would President Obama fund it?

Without Congress authorizing the money, it would be a meaningless E.O..

[berni_mccoy]

86. The Same Way Bush Funded the Iraq War.

[Kaleva]

89. Congress funds the Iraq war.

[SidneyCarton]

90. Sure, I mean we really didn't need Congress all that much anyway, right?

While we're at it, we can just shitcan Article 1 of the Constitution, it's inconvenient and archaic.

And term-limits for the Presidency, please.

:sarcasm:


Berni, I like President Obama just fine, but I would not want to see him use despotic power (even for the best of reasons) than I wanted to see Bush do it. He's not going to override Congress on this one, he has more respect for the Constitution than that.

[berni_mccoy]

92. And if Congress fails to pass HCR? Tens or Hundreds of thousands of Americans continue to die?

A lot of good Congress will be doing us, eh?

[SidneyCarton]

93. Brilliant, so we should just chuck the rule of law altogether.

It is unspeakably awful that hundreds of thousands of Americans continue to die. There is a mechanism designed to deal with Congress' intransigence on this issue, it is called an election, we will be having one in 2010, mobilize people and eliminate the incumbents who have opposed HCR. Hard work? Of course, shredding the Constitution is far easier, but the long term effects of such action threaten the lives of millions of Americans.

[yoyossarian]

94. That sounds like a great idea, Sydney, all things being equal...

But they're not.
Particularly regarding elections, we've already seen the manipulation of election results in America in 2000 and 2004 through the use of rigged electronic voting machines, among many other "strategies" used by the Rethugs to force their way with our once-proud democracy... and in those 8 catastrophic years following that INITIALLY bloodless coup, we've seen America completely remade in the very image of our current hidden oligarch overlords...
We've seen 2 illegal wars that are now being termed "Obama's", as if he had ANYTHING to do with their creation:



We've seen our SUPPOSEDLY representative govt's COMPLETE abdication of responsibility to its people in its emergency responses to Katrina (ABSOLUTE INACTION for nearly a week!)



and the trillion-dollar bailouts to banks--the ONLY entities NOT actually suffering in this current crisis, and in NO real need of a bailout whatsoever--in fact, they are the REASON there's a crisis to begin with!



--we've seen the rise of an irrational and reactionary fascist mentality that will brook NO serious debate over the key life-and-death crises of ecology and economy and basic social order that we are now facing as a country...




We've seen the absolute quashing of all serious scientific input into these questions, in favor of "faith-based" superstitious voodoo mumbo-jumbo as a better approach:



Qe've seen massive corruption and looting of our vast resources by a favored few:



We've watched as Rethugs have engaged in a titanic program of social re-engineering for our children, who are not allowed to listen to our current elected president give a totally benign speech on the virtues of education and basic hygiene without first vetting the speech and collecting millions of individual signed parental permission slips, but who now understand as a basic given that America embraces torture as an everyday aspect of our wonderful New World Order, that might always makes right and that being the loudest and most consistent liar with the biggest megaphone, or the most aggressive asshole with a biggest gun and the largest ego, are noble and positive qualities of true "winners"...



Even now, w/Bush gone and Cheney nearly dead but still ticking eerily, the torture never seems to stop...



My point is, what are you defending? WHAT rule of law? What positive social ideology? This is NOT America, no... this is Mordor, despite the belief by many still that it's all just business as usual...



We are poised at the brink here, folks; we've REACHED the tipping point, and many have already begun to fall into the bleak abyss... if you don't know this, Syd, I suggest you turn down your Ipod for a time and try looking around at the actual country sinking into the mire all around you.

To the OP:
I don't know if it'll work, but I like the way you think, Mr. McCoy... cuz shit, what the hell do we have left to lose, anyway?

NOTHING, as far as I can see...



This is NOT America.


Tee-shirts, buttons and such at
Laugh City!


President Evil Online
has risen from the grave!

[SidneyCarton]

98. Melodramatic much?

Thanks for the slideshow, it certainly made the rest of what you had to say entertaining at the very least.

Essentially what you are saying is "they did it, so we have to do it too." That's bullshit.

And when we eventually lose another election, having grossly enlarged the already bloated executive prerogative even more that Bush, then what?

Cthulthu help us if we get someone truly batshit crazy in there, Dubya and Cheney would look tame compared to the power that President would inherit if what Berni proposed here occured and went unopposed. In essence we are talking about an absolute Unitary Executive, where Congress isn't just reduced to a rubber-stamp body, it is bypassed altogether.

You think we don't have democracy now? Just wait pal, the more we flirt with naked authoritarianism, the more you'll realize how wrong you really are.

[proud patriot]

95. reading this brought me to tears

That would be a wonderful thing ..

[Hosnon]

107. Actually, it would be a horrible thing. nt.

[yoyossarian]

96. ps: +1!

n/t

[midnight]

105. Right on!