I thought I'd post a thread before the debate even starts suggesting that Obama killed it and stuck it to the Republicans since this is what the New York Times essentially did tonight. Pathetic.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why the administration releases its speech to the media prior to the speech happening?

It almost seems as if the administration does this in order to assist its allies in aligning themselves with the administration's messaging.

Why can't the talking heads simply react to the message after its been given? Why the heads up? Is it a logistical thing? The White House attempting to win favor with its news outlets who care or support him?

I honestly don't get it. Has this always been the case?

Incidentally, whoever made the decision to have Cathy McMorris Rodgers R-WA give the GOP response to Obama should be fired.

The fact that the GOP went with this woman for their response is endemic of everything that is wrong with the GOP. They just can't seem to get important decisions right.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Why can't the talking heads simply react to the message after its been given? Why the heads up? Is it a logistical thing? The White House attempting to win favor with its news outlets who care or support him?

I honestly don't get it. Has this always been the case?

For decades the SOTU speech is given to reporters ahead of time so that they can have their analysis ready immediately at the end. Instant analysis they call it. It's good for both the outlets and the office of the president, so it makes sense that it happens.

Decades?

It's good for both the outlets and the office of the president, so it makes sense that it happens.

Like I said, I don't get it. You say it's a good thing but you haven't explained how or why?

I'm sure you've seen Parliament debates on C-Span from time to time? The typical British politician seems better prepared to respond to critiques and positions on the spot than ours. The same holds true for their pundits.

Whenever I get a chance to see Parliament in action, the experience strikes me a sample of democracy at its best.

On the contrary, when our politicians have anything to say it always comes across as scripted, staged and contrived. On those occasions when a US politician has something to say that isn't scripted s/he usually misfires.

Anyway, please explain your point and thanks.

Dag

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Decades?

...

Anyway, please explain your point and thanks.

I recall learning about instant analysis in a political science class in the 1980s. The SOTU is about messaging. If the reporters are hearing it for the first time and then need to comment about it, they might get something wrong and screw up the President's message. That's bad for everyone.

I'm sure you've seen Parliament debates on C-Span from time to time? The typical British politician seems better prepared to respond to critiques and positions on the spot than ours. The same holds true for their pundits.

Whenever I get a chance to see Parliament in action, the experience strikes me a sample of democracy at its best.

If you're watching PMQs then most of what you're seeing is semi-scripted as well. Both leaders have teams of researchers who figure out what the talking points might be and prepare lines that can be used in response (ideally something that can sound good as a 2 sec clip on the evening news, which is the only time most people ever see any of the proceedings). That said, you're probably right that Parliamentarians are better at ad-libbing. There aren't many countries in the world where all of the senior ministers in the government have to face regular question sessions in an adversarial setting on the floor of the legislature. In fact I'd guess that it only happens in countries that run on the British model. They have to be good at reacting quickly in debate because it's a significant part of their job.

I myself couldn't even bring myself to watch it, even though my wife turned it in the other room on after the kids were in bed. Anybody inspired about what they heard? Or more of the theater of the absurd?

Does anyone have concerns about the Executive Branch over-stepping it's bounds with the executive orders?

It happened under many recent presidents and the trend is getting larger.
[url]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-2014 ... wish-list/[/url]

bbauska wrote:Does anyone have concerns about the Executive Branch over-stepping it's bounds with the executive orders?

It happened under many recent presidents and the trend is getting larger.
[url]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-2014 ... wish-list/[/url]

Is it? getting larger? Is Obama a particularly prolific user of EOs?

Obama has 167 over 5 years. That's an average of just over 33 a year.

The last President to issue a lower average than that was Grover Cleveland (and only then in his first term). The trend since WWII is downwards - In the 28 years 1953-81 (Eisenhower to Carter), 1858 Executive Orders were issued, just over 66 a year.

In the 18 years 1981-2008 (Reagan to GW Bush), 1202 were issued, just under 43 a year.

Now, whether recent EOs 'overstep' something (which I guess is for the Supreme Court to decide), and the 1200+ issued by Calvin Coolidge don't, I'm not able to judge. But perhaps it's a subjective thing.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Decades?

It's good for both the outlets and the office of the president, so it makes sense that it happens.

Like I said, I don't get it. You say it's a good thing but you haven't explained how or why?

It's a good thing for the politician concerned - their message gets out at the same time even to people who haven't watched the speech. It also means that the message gets out as intended in the writing (unless they seriously flub their lines).

It's good for journalists and the media because they can prepare a comment and response without having to listen to the full speech live, and journalists are lazy but the 24hr news cycle requires instant reaction.

Is it intrinsically "good" for everyone? Dunno.

I'm sure you've seen Parliament debates on C-Span from time to time? The typical British politician seems better prepared to respond to critiques and positions on the spot than ours. The same holds true for their pundits.

There is a different culture, but PMQs is not really the typical parliamentary debate. It's not even officially a debate. The actual debates will often consist of a series of speeches, where the giver of each may yield to another member for a question or interjection if they want to at a particular time, and may respond or brush it off as they wish.

However, a rule of the Parliament is that the Government should not announce new policy etc anywhere else before in Parliament (enforceable as every member of the government has to be a member of Parliament in either chamber, but not really strictly enforced).

Whenever I get a chance to see Parliament in action, the experience strikes me a sample of democracy at its best.

You should see the product of that Parliament as regards democracy. It is in the process of passing this: legislation that could prevent charities from campaigning in the run up to elections.

Anyway, even here if a politician is giving a speech outside Parliament, it will very often be trailed to the press, either in part on completely, and very often we will see on the news a story not about what a Minister has said, but on what they will say later on.

Yes, the amount is less. The impact of these executive orders is larger (opinion).

bbauska wrote:Yes, the amount is less. The impact of these executive orders is larger (opinion).

Which ones? Just so I can see what the recent EOs you are referring to are.

Of course, that doesn't include the ones in the CBS news article, as they don't even exist yet (and may not need to if Congress passes legislation).

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Yes, the amount is less. The impact of these executive orders is larger (opinion).

Which ones? Just so I can see what the recent EOs you are referring to are.

Of course, that doesn't include the ones in the CBS news article, as they don't even exist yet (and may not need to if Congress passes legislation).

Here's the thing. It's no big deal for a President to issue an order when Congress has authorized it. There are laws that almost demand that kind of thing.

However, when the law says 'X,' and the President orders 'Not X,' there's a problem. He has done that repeatedly with the ACA. He's also done that with immigration.

There are murkier areas where he seems to have overstepped his bounds, but there can be no doubt when it comes to the ACA.

For example, where would he get the authority to postpone the corporate mandate? It's in the law, passed by Congress and signed by him. How can he unilaterally change it? By what authority?

There are many examples of this.

He implemented the DREAM Act by fiat. Congress refused to pass it, so he did it.

Now, imagine a future GOP President. He doesn't like the capital gains tax. What if he just instructs the IRS not to collect it? That's exactly what Obama did with immigration--instructed ICE not to enforce the law.

That is the OPPOSITE of carrying out his oath of office.

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the thing. It's no big deal for a President to issue an order when Congress has authorized it. There are laws that almost demand that kind of thing.

And also there is clearly scope in the Constitution for a President to order things that are not related to what Congress has or hasn't said. For example, many Executive Orders relate to functions that the President has aside from being the implementor of Congressional Laws. For example, he is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and so can issue EOs relating to the running of the military (as Truman famously did when he desegregated the Army).

However, when the law says 'X,' and the President orders 'Not X,' there's a problem. He has done that repeatedly with the ACA. He's also done that with immigration.

Well... yes and no. Implementation of a law is the job of the Executive, but they do have discretion at times on the details. Sometimes it is written into a Law, but not always, and sometimes it is implied. For example, if a President believes a law to be unconstitutional, he does not have to enforce it (although this can be challenged of course). John Roberts once did that on behalf of Bush Sr, in the case of Metro Broadcasting v. FCC.

I may be wrong, but generally acts like the ACA do not set start dates for when things have to happen - they set start dates for when they can happen - they empower the Executive to do things, because under your Constitution the Executive cannot do things it is not empowered to do.

For example, where would he get the authority to postpone the corporate mandate? It's in the law, passed by Congress and signed by him. How can he unilaterally change it? By what authority?

Presidential Authority. Perhaps you can show me the text in the law that he is actually breaching by not putting the mandate into force by a particular date.

Apparently they can also use the lovely provisions relating to the end of their terms to put all kinds of stuff through without reference to Congress - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/d ... egulations

He implemented the DREAM Act by fiat. Congress refused to pass it, so he did it.

Except what he implemented was not the whole DREAM Act. It was just not deporting people who would have come under the DREAM Act's provisions.

Now, imagine a future GOP President. He doesn't like the capital gains tax. What if he just instructs the IRS not to collect it? That's exactly what Obama did with immigration--instructed ICE not to enforce the law.

The Executive always has discretion on law enforcement. I found this in a report from the Heritage Foundation:

The President has the sole constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"[17] and this grants him broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions. He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly.[18] In addition, the President has absolute prosecutorial discretion in declining to bring criminal indictments. As in the exercise of any other constitutional power, one may argue that a particular President is "abusing his discretion," but even in such a case, he cannot be compelled to prosecute any criminal charges.

Source - http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... directives (pdf)

A future GOP president could likewise instruct the IRS not to prosecute people who fail to pay capital gains tax (which would be equivalent)

That is the OPPOSITE of carrying out his oath of office.

And yet I can't see which actual Executive Orders you are referring to. Care to share the numbers?

danivon wrote:

However, when the law says 'X,' and the President orders 'Not X,' there's a problem. He has done that repeatedly with the ACA. He's also done that with immigration.

Well... yes and no. Implementation of a law is the job of the Executive, but they do have discretion at times on the details. Sometimes it is written into a Law, but not always, and sometimes it is implied. For example, if a President believes a law to be unconstitutional, he does not have to enforce it (although this can be challenged of course). John Roberts once did that on behalf of Bush Sr, in the case of Metro Broadcasting v. FCC.

Right. So, has President Obama ever determined that the immigration laws he's not enforcing are, in fact, "unconstitutional?"

How about the employer mandate? What authority within the bill or within the Constitution did he have to change it? His rationale was (paraphrase) "Businesses have asked me to hold off, so I am." How is that in keeping with what Congress passed?

How about the other delays? Can a President take text passed by Congress that says "shall . . . on (fill in the date) . . . " and change it however he wishes? If so, again, what are the limits? How do we know?

I may be wrong, but generally acts like the ACA do not set start dates for when things have to happen - they set start dates for when they can happen - they empower the Executive to do things, because under your Constitution the Executive cannot do things it is not empowered to do.

First, I would note with a chuckle that Sec. Sebellius said they were required to launch the website on Oct. 1. That was one of her defenses.

I'm not going to read the bill to find the dates, but if they were merely set by the Administration (as you hope/imply/wish), there would be no issue when it changed them--after all, they would all be under its purview.

For example, where would he get the authority to postpone the corporate mandate? It's in the law, passed by Congress and signed by him. How can he unilaterally change it? By what authority?

Presidential Authority. Perhaps you can show me the text in the law that he is actually breaching by not putting the mandate into force by a particular date.

Nope, that is shifting the burden. Again, it's more than 2000 pages. I did find this from NPR:

ROVNER: Well, it turns out there was a problem. In order to make that work, employers were going to have to provide an enormous amount of information, mainly to the IRS, also to these insurance exchanges and to insurers. A lot of detailed information about who they cover, what level of coverage is provided, how much it all costs in order to basically determine whether they're providing adequate insurance or not in order to determine what the penalty should be. The regulations to determine how that's going to work, how that information is going to be exchanged, those had not all been put out yet. And employers were growing increasingly agitated that they didn't know what they had to do and when they had to do it.

SIEGEL: You mean the law was there, but the rules and regulations to implement the law weren't really worked out.

ROVNER: Exactly. And so they were upset they were going to have to do all of these things and weren't sure exactly how to do them. They were getting increasingly frustrated. And I think the administration finally decided that it just wasn't fair to say that you have to do these things even though we haven't exactly told you how. And so they've decided to delay the - basically, the reporting requirements for a year. But since they're delaying the reporting requirements, they then can't have the penalties go into effect either because they can't assess the penalties without the reporting.

SIEGEL: Well, do all of these companies who've been complaining about these burdensome requirements, as they saw them, are they pleased with this delay of a year?

Congress passed the plan with specific taxes, requirements, and the dates by which each would be collected or must be fulfilled. They gave the HHS Secretary a lot of flexibility, but NOT with regard to dates.

He implemented the DREAM Act by fiat. Congress refused to pass it, so he did it.

Except what he implemented was not the whole DREAM Act. It was just not deporting people who would have come under the DREAM Act's provisions.

And yet, that is contrary to the current law. Congress looked at the DREAM Act. It failed to pass. So, the President just decided he would do everything he could to implement it. You might agree with him, but it is a thumb in the eye to representative government.

Now, imagine a future GOP President. He doesn't like the capital gains tax. What if he just instructs the IRS not to collect it? That's exactly what Obama did with immigration--instructed ICE not to enforce the law.

The Executive always has discretion on law enforcement. I found this in a report from the Heritage Foundation:

The President has the sole constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"[17] and this grants him broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions. He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly.[18] In addition, the President has absolute prosecutorial discretion in declining to bring criminal indictments. As in the exercise of any other constitutional power, one may argue that a particular President is "abusing his discretion," but even in such a case, he cannot be compelled to prosecute any criminal charges.

Yes, but technically, being an illegal alien is not a "criminal" charge. It is a civil violation. Deportation is not jail time.

That is the OPPOSITE of carrying out his oath of office.

And yet I can't see which actual Executive Orders you are referring to. Care to share the numbers?

I'm not surprised by your response. You probably like "dictator light."

Again, what stops a Republican from taking office and just doing whatever he/she wants? You seem to really like the ruling by fiat thing. Maybe you prefer a monarchy, but we fought a war against it.