Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Paul Ryan: U.S. has 'increasingly lawless presidency'

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
OK, I consider myself a reasonable person; however, I think that Paul Ryan is the pot calling the kettle black on this one...

Ryan:

"We have an increasingly lawless presidency where he is actually doing the job of Congress, writing new policies and new laws without going through Congress," Ryan said. "Presidents don't write laws, Congress does. And when he does things like he did in healthcare, delaying mandates that the law said was supposed to occur when they were supposed to occur, that's not his job. The job of Congress is to change laws if he doesn't like them, not the presidency."

www.upi.com...

OK your right, the prezi is bending the rules, but he may have good reason...

Check out this article:

"Every two years a new Congress is sworn in, and the current Congress is the 113th that’s been sworn in since the George Washington presidency, and it’s well on its way to setting a very undesirable record.

The current do-nothing Congress is on track to pass fewer bills than the 112th do-nothing Congress, which passed the fewest number of bills signed into law since record keeping began back in the 1940’s.

Right now, the 113th Congress has a pile of legislation yet to be considered, including everything from student loans, to immigration reform, post office reform, and looming fiscal deadlines for the debt limit.

But don’t expect this latest and greatest rendition of the do-nothing Congress to get around to any of that any time soon.

Since the 113th Congress took over Capitol Hill in January, lawmakers have only managed to pass 15 bills that were signed into law by President Obama.

To put that number into perspective, it’s 8 fewer bills than in the first sixth months of the 112th Congress, and a whopping 19 fewer bills than in the first six months of the 111th Congress.

And of those 15 bills that were passed and signed into law, very few contained legislation addressing the most serious issues affecting America today.

That is of course unless you count specifying “the size of the precious-metal blank that will be used in the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coins” as an issue of urgent national importance.

So, how did we get to the point in Washington where Congress can’t manage to pass legislation of urgent importance, but passes a bill addressing coinage just like that?

The stunning inaction and backlog in the 113th Congress can be traced back to January 20, 2009.

On a night when most of us were out celebrating the start of the Obama presidency, and attending galas and balls, a group of Republican lawmakers was plotting the end of the Obama Presidency, before it had really begun.

On that night at the Caucus Room restaurant in Washington, Republican leaders on Capitol Hill plotted to intentionally sabotage and undermine the Obama presidency at every chance possible.

As Robert Draper notes in his book, “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives,” the list of attendees at the Caucus Room dinner was a virtual who’s-who of Republican power players in Washington.

On the guest list for the four hour, “invitation only” meeting were Republican Congressmen Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra and Dan Lungren. Republican Senators Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign and Bob Corker were also in attendance. The whole thing was orchestrated by Republican propaganda mastermind Frank Luntz.

Newt Gingrich was also in attendance, and on my radio show a few months back, he flat out admitted that the purpose of the dinner meeting was to come up with a plan to sabotage the Obama presidency.

During the dinner, the Republican lawmakers vowed to bring Congress to an absolute standstill, regardless of how badly Congressional inaction would hurt the already hurting American economy and people, by pledging to obstruct, filibuster and block any legislation that President Obama approved of.

And while the meeting at the Caucus Room was top-secret, Republican attendees at that meeting were very frank, just a couple months later, about what had transpired.

Congressman Pete Sessions told the National Journal in March of 2009 that the Republican sabotage plan was all about following the tactics of the Taliban, a terrorist organization.

Sessions said that, “Taliban Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. Insurgency is the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side.”

The Texas Congressman went on to say that, “If they [democrats] do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become Insurgency ... I think Insurgency is a mindset and an attitude that we're going to have to search for and find ways to get our message out and to be prepared to see things for what they are, rather than trying to do something about them.”"

www.truth-out.org...


Whew! Long article but it brings an interesting point to mind. Our current system of government cannot even pass a bill to save the countries credit rating until the last second, if you do not work with the other half of the aisle like ever... what exactly do you expect to happen, the country just stops? LOL, no the prezi is making executive orders and you do not want to " impeach him" because your party is the hand that is forcing him to do so. In my constitutional law class a few years back we were asked to examine the articles of confederation, the creating of the constitution at the Philadelphia convention and the opinions of the framers later in life. There were disagreements between the framers such as the terms of the Presidential office, and the powers of a centralized government over the individual. Thomas Jefferson proposed rewriting the U.S. Constitution every twenty years, it is now 225 years old. “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” -Thomas Jefferson

And for the final thought...

Voting is a fundamental right given to us 125 years ago by the fourteenth amendment; however, recent vote restricting laws have been passed by the republican party and supported by Paul Ryan, and they include:

Poll taxes, literacy requirements and most recently voter ID laws and a push to change state constitutions to enforce these restrictions, point is republicans are not even trying to hide it.These tactics have been deployed to restrict voting rights to certain populations. So reality check Paul Ryan you are correct written into our Constitution is a paragraph that forms of government should be altered when they become destructive in and of themselves. But you are the needed alteration, your party is the needed alteration, maybe you should consider that Mr. Ryan. I remember when the republicans were the good guys, when our congress and house worked in unison to protect the country. I do not know if my kids will ever get to see that.




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by thekaliyuga
 


So your saying it's all the republicans fault? What about the bills they are being asked to pass - isn't it possible they don't agree with them?

Aside from that - they are all being lawless IMO - it's one big game of strategy - no longer about focusing on what's truly best for this Country and the masses. Change has been so gradual people haven't contemplated it on a wider scale - and so it goes on unchecked and undisputed at any meaningful level.


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thekaliyuga
 




The current do-nothing Congress is on track to pass fewer bills than the 112th do-nothing Congress, which passed the fewest number of bills signed into law since record keeping began back in the 1940’s.


IMO congress of the last 30+ years have be passing way too many bills. We now have so many laws on the books that the DOJ can't even count them all. Pretty much the only bills I would like to see them passing is to clean up all the extraneous bills they've already passed.

And didn't the House submit a bill to the Senate on the budget that Harry Reid refused to even take to the floor for discussion? I think there is obstructionism in congress alright and it comes directly from the lead of the POTUS and his hatchet-man Reid.

Voting Independent Libertarian across the board is the only way to get us out of this mess.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by thekaliyuga
 


OK your right, the prezi is bending the rules, but he may have good reason...
"Bending?" "Bending?????????" But he has a good reason. Remind me about that line when I get pulled over for speeding.

The President is breaking the law, and his excuse is that the opposition party isn't supporting his bills???

And this scary meeting of opposition leaders. Did you really expect them to say, "Let's work on making this new President and his party look good?" When has that ever happened? The new president who said just a day or two after he was sworn in, to the Republicans he wanted to have work with him, "I won."

The same President who got Obamacare through without giving any one the time to read it, let alone understand it. And who told the Republicans that he wasn't going to work with them. No discussion, no amendments, he had enough votes from just the Democrats, and didn't bother to get even one from any Republican in the House or Senate.

There are different ways to see the situation, but I don't believe that your opinion has much support outside do or die Obama fans.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by thekaliyuga
 


While I strongly believe what you are saying and understand the point of view of the OP, I have to remind you of one main issue, yes bills originate in the house, then goes to the senate, but for years congress have not written a darn thing the bills are mostly written by the thousands of interest lobbyist that parade the halls of Washington this days looking for politicians to buy in order to push their private interest agendas.

See the bills are already written then congress only have to add their pork to make it more attractive to the people that voted them in.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by thekaliyuga
 


While I strongly believe what you are saying and understand the point of view of the OP, I have to remind you of one main issue, yes bills originate in the house, then goes to the senate, but for years congress have not written a darn thing the bills are mostly written by the thousands of interest lobbyist that parade the halls of Washington this days looking for politicians to buy in order to push their private interest agendas.

See the bills are already written then congress only have to add their pork to make it more attractive to the people that voted them in.



Sounds lawless.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

thekaliyuga
OK, I consider myself a reasonable person...

The current do-nothing Congress is on track to pass fewer bills than the 112th do-nothing Congress, which passed the fewest number of bills signed into law since record keeping began back in the 1940’s.



I thought I was a reasonable person... ' till I found myself talking politics again ( kidd. )
'
Power vacuum = Action , is your point, right ? ' If You won't do sumpin'... then I will ? It makes some practical sense , but - isn't the way the system was designed IMHO.

But, you're right ... at the very least about the ' Pot ' and the ' Kettle ' .



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thekaliyuga
 


First off there is no good reason for Obama to rule by executive orders, regardless of how good or bad you think Congress might be. The damage to separation of powers can radically shift one branch above the other.

The Constitution gave Congress the power of the purse.
The Constitution gave the President the Veto.

They either work together or they don't. The Republican party is just 25% of the problem. The Democratic Party is just 25% of the problem.

The American people are 50% of the problem. The bulk refuses to participate in government, they rubber stamp politicians who have failed to do their job.

If the tables were reversed, and it is the Republican party who holds the White House and the Senate, and pulled the same stunts the Democrats have done, media and people would be throwing a massive fit.

The President is the President for every single American, regardless if they voted for him or not.
The US Congress is the Congress for every single American, regardless is they voted for them or not.

The people decided that have 2 out of 3 branches under the control of a single party was enough. They opted to send Republicans to the House. BOTH parties are required to work together. Control of the executive and partial senate is not a mandate for the Democratic party to dismiss their Republican counterparts. The reason its like this is so the minority position can be heard and examined.

I don't care how bad Congress can get. The moment we allow one branch to usurp the authority of another, the harm done will be almost impossible to fix.

A Do Nothing Congress can easily be fixed. It would require the American people to fire those politicians who seem to take their position as a powerbase for their own use rather than representing their constituents - The American People.

Get out and VOTE. Contact your reps and let them know how you feel, regardless of what side of the coin you are on.
edit on 2-2-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Passing fewer bills is a good thing. Every time a law is enacted a freedom is lost.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by thekaliyuga
 


Have you considered something else might be in play here.

The majority in the House actually represents the majority of the population.

Congressional district structure is set forth in that pesky thing called the Constitution.

It's a little complicated but.

Take notice that we seldom hear about that little anomaly from the Executive Branch people.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I think the big story here is Paul Ryan is clearly planning another White House run.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


mmmm I dont know about that. Your position requires a 100% voter turn out, and excludes the people who voted against a candidate.- addition

I would suppose though if a representative is actually doing his job, he wouldn't care about party lines. He or she would take your issue up all the same and put his or her personal positions aside.
edit on 2-2-2014 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   


OK your right, the prezi is bending the rules, but he may have good reason...
reply to post by thekaliyuga
 


He is not merely 'bending rules", he is breaking the law. A good reason or not....the law exists for a reason. There is a separation of power for a reason. If a president can break the law with impunity...what good is having laws to begin with? It makes Obama no better than any 3rd world tyrant. In fact all branches of government are seeing they can break the law with impunity...ie....NSA spying.




So, how did we get to the point in Washington where Congress can’t manage to pass legislation of urgent importance, but passes a bill addressing coinage just like that?


I submit that the blame falls sqarely on the American people. These are your representatives. They have been allowed to get away with it. Congress is broken...same with the Senate. Big banks and corporations have captured the government and regulators through campaign donations...you want your Congress back? Get corporate money out of politics.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Nephalim
reply to post by xuenchen
 


mmmm I dont know about that. Your position requires a 100% voter turn out, and excludes the people who voted against a candidate.- addition

I would suppose though if a representative is actually doing his job, he wouldn't care about party lines. He or she would take your issue up all the same and put his or her personal positions aside.
edit on 2-2-2014 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)


But "party lines" may in fact play a part.

Candidates run as party members.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Paul Ryan complaining that someone else is lawless too funny. Is our bought and paid for congressmen upset that our bought and paid for president isn't doing what they want? Personally I find it insulting that people would even refer to Republicans as the Taliban I cannot see the Taliban being as cruel as the Republicans. At least when the Taliban wants to get rid of someone they just flat out kill them the Republicans would prefer the person die a slow death like by starvation. Seeing how buddy buddy McCain is with Al Qaeda shouldn't they be using their tactics?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
These boards are starting to get swamped with the hard rightwing in the same way that AM talk radio got hijacked by the rightwing as the 1980s came to a close. It's getting clearer and clearer that these people think that the Internet can become their megaphone in the same way that talk radio did. Pretty funny. It's as if they really don't understand the fundamental nature of the Internet, and how it's not like radio, where you can take over the airwaves of a regional market and control the media slant. On the Internet, if the drumbeat gets too relentless or the message to monopolized, the crows will simply move on to a new information portal, and the only change in anything is that the site itself becomes irrelevant.

This thread won't have any progressives agreeing with the OP, and that's the case even though everything the OP stated is easily verified as being true. It's really sad that these hard right posters have no idea what powers the Executive Branch has versus the Legislative Branch, but it's even sadder if these people know better but think that if they lie about the legal latitude of Executive Orders that it'll actually make any difference on what Obama does or doesn't do when all is said and done.

I like the Paranormal and Metaphysics and Science forums, but the Political forums are like a sausage-fest for all the diversity of opinion or even-handedness. A reader can get everything here by just logging onto Drudge or WND, without all the reiteration and "me too" drivel.

I just hope this site doesn't fail as a result of the way it's become so homogenized through ideological swarming.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thekaliyuga
 


Great OP man. I am an independent and truly do vote for the best candidates. I have to say I knew the Republicans were doing this but now I am sickened. That they care so little for this country. They have literally said no to everything. It is shameful.

They should all get kicked out. Seriously, it should be against some law. I can't even articulate how wrong this has been. So angry i can hardly see straight. Everyone of them needs to go period.

Everyone, no matter what party you are with, should be appalled at this behavior. We should demand they step down.

The Bot



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 


Well he is right, in the sense that a reason we have mid term elections is to elect the congress, in between presidencies, when the people is happy with the party ruling the nation they keep congress in the party in charge favor, but when the president is not what the people expected the checks and balances make possible to strip the president from some of his powers with a opposing majority congress.

Regardless of how bought and pay for our congress is due to private interest lobbying.

And yes the presidents in the past few elections has done a lot of power pushing with executives directives, but remember that congress and the courts have the power stop executives decisions.

But for some reason it haven't happened. We most wonder why.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Since I been in ATS politics has been always a hot issue, and more so in the last few years. The site has become stronger not failing.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

riffraff
Passing fewer bills is a good thing. Every time a law is enacted a freedom is lost.





Jeff Foxworthy:

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.






new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join