|
An imperial presidency... claims a Democrat?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
I'm interested in you guys' thoughts on this potential situation. Not just because we heard from the Left for years now that Bush had too much power and was dissolving the whole "checks and balances" thing... but I want to know if you all who support Obama would be open to him having even more consolidated power than you thought Bush did.
This was brought up by Robert Byrd, worrying that Obama is trying to make a power grab:
| quote: | In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”
The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the president will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the administration will be transparent and open to the American public.” |
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html
Believe me, this is the last guy I want to side with, but he makes a good point.
This follows another Politico piece from last month titled "The West Wing On Steroids" in which White House advisors act as de facto cabinet super-secretaries.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17908.html
Says Allahpundit, "Clinton and Bush did the same thing, but not quite as ambitiously as The One. Quote: 'Aides say he believes the Cabinet structure is outdated because it doesn’t recognize that problems like global warming sprawl across several agencies, often requiring a sort of uber-Cabinet member – a czar – to confront them.'"
Thoughts? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| after the last 8 years id be happy if he grew a funny moustache and marched you all into labour camps. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| When the president actually tries to solve problems, it's not surprising to find out some still want the status quo. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
When the president actually tries to create more complex problems, it's not surprising to find out some still want the status quo. |
fixed for accuracy :disbelief |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
fixed for accuracy :disbelief |
Riiiight, Obama forming offices for different issues is a problem... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| I don't really get the complaint. It's not constitutionally-mandated that everybody who works in the Executive branch be confirmed by the Senate. Having a point person in the White House for specific policy issues is hardly the same as having someone creating legislation and policy outside the bounds of government. In the end health policy will still have to be legislated and implemented by a confirmed Secretary of Health and Human Services... I just see Byrd as unhappy about the declining influence of Senate committee hearings. Honestly, I worked in a committee in the Senate for a summer, and I don't think this is a bad development at all - most staff are young and have only tangential experience with the policy matters their members are dealing with. Let the actual experts write the legislation and send it to Congress for review and a vote. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
"Obama might as well have made either Bush or Cheney his War on Terror Czar"
the left's silence on that is too funny. welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse |
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
"Obama might as well have made either Bush or Cheney his War on Terror Czar"
the left's silence on that is too funny. welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse |
Tis true - have you read David Brooks lately? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
have you read David Brooks lately? |
i read the Weekly Standard often, thats probably where i got the quote but i cant say for sure. i read all kinds of stuff.
one article recently that stands out to me regarding this i read in the IHT >LINK< |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
:stongue: :stongue: |
...or maybe ambiguous cynicism is the new paradigm for political discourse? |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
the left's silence on that is too funny. welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse |
oh i thought you said intercourse.... :( |
|
|
|
|
