bbauska wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_%28government%29

Meaning what? I know what executive government does. I want to know whether you understand what the oath means (the Constitution is part of US law - the highest part - but the Constitution does not contain the whole law).

The argument from HHS is that the waiver is legal, based on their reading of the law in Title 42. If it is, then I don't see what point you are making here.

If not, perhaps you could explain in less obtuse terms how it breaches the law. DF has put an argument across, but yours is sadly lacking in evidence or accuracy.

DF, I have seen that argument. However, it doesn't deal with the memo in full, which points out that waivers would only be considered for projects that involve changes which are 'intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF'. It also says that evaluation of such projects will be kept up and if a project fails to meet performance targets the waiver will be terminated. The 'plan' (and attendant certification) is the main Federal control, it is down to the States to comply in order to be eligible for funding. So, waiving the plan requirements allows States to come up with projects that can be flexible and look at new ways of getting people into work (and thus, off welfare). Part of that would possibly involve having claimants undertake activity not defined as 'work' but which helps them to get work. If the intention of TANF and welfare reform is to get more people off benefits and into work, that should be welcomed. If the intention was just to make people work for their benfits and not worry about the long term consequences, or to 'punish' the unemployed with children by making them work, I can see how this would be a problem.

As such projects can be set up at a sub-state level, it could well be that a project that does loosen the work requirment in one part of that State, does not result in the State as a whole falling below the targets set out in section 407.

It is not clearly a breach of the law, without a judicial ruling. Has it been taken to court, or are we just seeing op-eds in places like the National Review or Heritage declaiming it?

Even if it were a breach of the law, the Romney campaign characterisation of it is completely false, implying a total removal of the work requirement when that is not the case and not the intent.

danivon wrote:It is not clearly a breach of the law, without a judicial ruling. Has it been taken to court, or are we just seeing op-eds in places like the National Review or Heritage declaiming it?

I find the Heritage argument more compelling than the one you presented.

The Obama Administration claims it is to give States more flexibility. This might be the first time they expressed concern for that notion. This is an Administration that has consistently attempted to focus more power in DC, and specifically in its own hands.

Even if it were a breach of the law, the Romney campaign characterisation of it is completely false, implying a total removal of the work requirement when that is not the case and not the intent.

It might be an exaggeration--maybe. I think we'll have to see how if fleshes itself out. I'm hopeful someone will figure out a way to challenge this in court.

Doctor Fate wrote:I find the Heritage argument more compelling than the one you presented.

Well now, there's a shock.

The Obama Administration claims it is to give States more flexibility. This might be the first time they expressed concern for that notion. This is an Administration that has consistently attempted to focus more power in DC, and specifically in its own hands.

Apart from the polemic here, are we not able to say we should give credit where it is due? If indeed this is the first time the current administration has given States greater autonomy, should that not be encouraged rather than condemned?

It might be an exaggeration--maybe.

If the Obama campaign were to similarly employ such 'exaggeration', you and others would be pointing out a lie. Loudly. It's no different to claims that Ryan would end Medicare, based on his budget proposals of last year.

I think we'll have to see how if fleshes itself out. I'm hopeful someone will figure out a way to challenge this in court.

Is that your way of telling us it hasn't gone to court yet? I suspect the only way to do it would be to find a State that had failed the TANF work requirements after the fact - so not likely to happen before November, if at all.

I answered your statement about the presidential oath. I quote it below:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

My point is the execution of the office, hence the link of presidential duties above in my previous post.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486_Page3.html

Well, Brad, it sure looks to be a debateable point as to whether waivers could be granted. And I don't think the point will be litigated, because it wasn't controversial--the Republicans simply thought they could some score political points. And, as Danivon pointed out, even if waivers couldn't be granted the ad was misleading in indicating that the Obama administration sought to end work requirements--plainly that is not accurate.

As to the racial component of the ad, I am not saying the ad was overtly racist. But blacks as a percentage are more likely to get welfare--people are aware of that fact. In the past, there have been politicians who have made coded references to the fact. What "base" do you think Romney is referring to? What do think Romney was saying when he made that joke that he had never had to show his birth certificate? In tough economic times people take care of their own and these type of ads are designed to get people to resent the "other'.

bbauska, so far, I've not seen anything beyond assertion from you that Obama has failed to uphold the Constitution in this regard. The HHS is using a piece of the Social Security law that enables them to waive other parts of the same law. There is dispute as to whether the particular waiver being applied is covered under that law, but it's certainly not a clear cut case of breaking the law.

And then there's the case that while everyone in the executive branch is answerable to the Preseident, and he is ultimately responsible, he's not actually equivalent to them. If they breach the law, that doesn't automatically mean that the President has. It's only if he's involved in a breach, or is provaby complicit in it that the direct responsibility travels up. An example is Watergate. Nixon was not responsible for it at the time it happened. He became involved as a result of attempts to cover things up, which then went up to the Oval Office.

Then there's the other example of an executive branch agent not fully upholding the law: what of a police officer who notes someone speeding (against the law) or with defective lights (also against the law), but uses their discretion to let them off (maybe with a verbal warning) because they are contrite and it was a marginal case anyway, or because the officer has other work to do (such as a priority call coming in, or they are looking for something more serious). Should we sack all police officers who exercise such discretion? Should we declare as a result of this that the Chief of Police in in breach of their terms of office?

While I understand that the President is the prime executive of the Federal US government, it is becoming too easy to equate any part of that executive function with the person of the President. It was happening before Obama came in, of course, with 'Bush' being blamed for things he wasn't actually doing himself, but that doesn't make it an less of a problem.

freeman2 wrote:As to the racial component of the ad, I am not saying the ad was overtly racist. But blacks as a percentage are more likely to get welfare--people are aware of that fact. In the past, there have been politicians who have made coded references to the fact. What "base" do you think Romney is referring to? What do think Romney was saying when he made that joke that he had never had to show his birth certificate? In tough economic times people take care of their own and these type of ads are designed to get people to resent the "other'.

Do you really want to debate whose "more racist?" If so, start a forum.

My money's on your side.

Just look how liberals refer to any minority who is a conservative. If they're not an "Uncle Tom" or a "house slave," they are a "race traitor" or not a "real woman."

Doctor Fate wrote:Do you really want to debate whose "more racist?" If so, start a forum.

My money's on your side.

Just look how liberals refer to any minority who is a conservative. If they're not an "Uncle Tom" or a "house slave," they are a "race traitor" or not a "real woman."

Or throw nuts at a black woman saying "this is how we feed animals". Oh, that guy was at the RNC (and rightly thrown out). Probably a liberal mole, right?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Do you really want to debate whose "more racist?" If so, start a forum.

My money's on your side.

Just look how liberals refer to any minority who is a conservative. If they're not an "Uncle Tom" or a "house slave," they are a "race traitor" or not a "real woman."

Or throw nuts at a black woman saying "this is how we feed animals". Oh, that guy was at the RNC (and rightly thrown out). Probably a liberal mole, right?

Of course, you saw what happened to Mia Love's Wikipedia entry?

Was that a conservative mole?

I can do this all day, all month, all year.

Are you saying, Danivon, that he is not upholding the law and that is ok? Just checking because as specific as you can be, I would have thought that you would want accuracy in the execution of someone's job.

bbauska wrote:Are you saying, Danivon, that he is not upholding the law and that is ok? Just checking because as specific as you can be, I would have thought that you would want accuracy in the execution of someone's job.

No, I'm saying that you have not established that he is not upholding the law at all. You haven't even established that the HHS waiver is a breach of the law, let alone how that is down to Obama.

Indeed, I've said more than once that I believe that the waiver is legal. I know that DF disagrees, and he has produced a Heritage article to explain that position.

Now that I've answered your question (despite it being plain from my previous posts, IMO), how about you answer my questions?

Doctor Fate wrote:Of course, you saw what happened to Mia Love's Wikipedia entry?

Nope. Just looked it up...

Reprehensible. Wikipedia vandalism - and especially that kind - is unfortunately easy to do and quickly public, but is particularly nasty.

Was that a conservative mole?

No idea. Probably not. Not sure how it proves any 'side' is worse than the other. From over here they both look pretty bad.

I can do this all day, all month, all year.

Ain't that the truth!

If either person (Chief or patrol officer) was not prosecuting the laws to the fullest extent of the law due to some discrimination (political, financial, racial, sexual etc.) you would be quite rightly calling for the officer's head on a stick.

I give evidence about DOMA not being defended as a law because of reverse sexual discrimination.
I give evidence about immigration laws not being followed due to reverse racial discrimination.
Do I need to go through all of the ways that the president does not uphold the laws he disagrees with? Really?

The President is obligated to uphold the law regardless of his position on it. He can attempt to change the law (legally, hopefully) and then have new legislation written by the Congress. To ignore set a terrible precedent that can be used against him in the coming months if he were to lose the election.

Imagine President Romney...
He chooses to not enforce the ACA and not make employers and citizens pay for this law because the Senate filibusters the repeal (quite likely)

What is your position on that?

bbauska wrote:If either person (Chief or patrol officer) was not prosecuting the laws to the fullest extent of the law due to some discrimination (political, financial, racial, sexual etc.) you would be quite rightly calling for the officer's head on a stick.

No. Some discrimination is fair. Some is unfair. The list you give is of unfair discrimination, based on prejudice. The example I gave is not like that. So, please answer my question as it was stated, rather than a different one.

Do you agree that cops should be able to show discretion such as not pursuing prosection for a minor offence in the circumstances I described above (higher priority work, a contrite citizen in a marginal situation...)?

I give evidence about DOMA not being defended as a law because of reverse sexual discrimination.

What evidence are you bringing, other than asserting it? Particularly of secual discrimination.

I give evidence about immigration laws not being followed due to reverse racial discrimination.

What evidence to you bring, other than asserting it? Particularly of racial discrimination.

Do I need to go through all of the ways that the president does not uphold the laws he disagrees with? Really?

Nope. Just provide evidence that he does so in a way that no other President has or would. Just repeating claims is not providing evidence, it's just assertion.

Please tell me:

1) In what way is the President breaching the law on DOMA? I thought all that was happening was that the government was not actively defending the law against legal challenge. That is not particularly unusual for governments to do, if they believe they would lose the case. We would not want them to waste taxpayers' money on lawyers for nothing, would we?

2) In what way is the President breaching the law on immigration? I am aware of an amnesty proposal and ways to help illegal immigrants regularise their status, but other administrations have done the same thing in the past, without the President being in danger of impeachment. I'm also aware of an increasing number of deportations of illegals, which looks like the upholding of law to me, rather than the reverse.

3) Going back to the subject that came up in this thread... In what way is the President breaching the law on Social Security work requirements? I can see that the HHS is proposing waiving part of the law (arguing that the law itself allows such a waiver), as part of demonstration projects designed to find better ways to help recipients get into work. But in what way is that a breach, and how are you showing that the President himself is responsible for a memo produced in the HHS?

The President is obligated to uphold the law regardless of his position on it. He can attempt to change the law (legally, hopefully) and then have new legislation written by the Congress.

So, provide actual evidence, please, that Obama has failed to do so. A lot of laws have flexibility built into them (such as the waivers in Title 42, Chapter 7, section 1115), which might not be obvious to the casual observer, but which allow the Executive to alter previous practice noticeably.

And, as I have mentioned above, actions by lower level agents of the executive do not automatically confer responsibility for those actions upon their bosses. The CEO of a company is not personally responsible for all of the actions of the employees, unless you can show a causal connection or complicity. If you think you can claim Obama is personally responsible, please show your workings.

Imagine President Romney...
He chooses to not enforce the ACA and not make employers and citizens pay for this law because the Senate filibusters the repeal (quite likely)

What is your position on that?

As far as I'm aware, Romney has promised to not enforce the whole of the ACA from day one. I assume on that basis you will refuse to vote for someone who is campaigning on a pledge to undo his oath? Or perhaps you can see a way in which he can not enforce the ACA and it not actually be a breach.