These 2 are always funny to me. The first is funny because it's not the President's job to decide if something is constitutional - so more accurately, it should read: FIRST, cancel every executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama that I do not agree with. The second is funny because there seems to be this idea among conservatives that you need conservative judges in the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution - when the job of the Supreme Court, regardless of who is in it, to determine what IS Constitutional, rather than UPHOLDING the Constitution.
My concern is that it looks like years of obstruction followed by a brief periods of being able to do something when one party happens to be able to get both Senate/House and WH is going to become the new normal. This seems like it'll mean a continuation of partisan politics where each side works to obstruct/undo each other's work, and we see very little compromise.
This is also a lofty goal, and one I'd like to see succeed, but it doesn't seem viable, especially with his proposed cabinet likely to be filled with special interests.
government could also stop trying to 'get things done' and just get the hell out of the way. A shame so much time is going to be needed just to reverse all the social engineering the left has forced upon everybody.
Well, he already triggered the majority of people at my college just by winning the election so I think a continuation of that is a safe assumption.
sorry sok but in most cases its obvious what is unconstitutional, the constitution of the united states has been bypassed with many laws passed, corrupt judges / justices agreeing to these changes, constitution is treated as toilet paper nowadays. derp, how do you think they determine what is constitutional. obviously republicans honor it more than democrats, another no brainer.
That part about speeding up FDA drug approvals seems reckless. The whole point is to make sure drugs are completely safe, and skipping that means introducing risks.
No? My only point was that each President at least since Bush SR. has been steadily expanding the scope of what the Executive Branch can do if they declare a suitable "State of Emergency." This isn't blaming Obama, it's pointing out that these declarations of expanding Executive powers has been bipartisan.
We have discussed this and I argued that this started long before Bush. Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus during the civil war. Franklin Roosevelt established internment camps. Truman put steel mills under Federal control (later overturned by the Supreme Court). Reagan was also an abuser of executive powers as I noted last time: "Most of the current trends in the use of unilateral executive actions can be traced back to the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Previous presidents had used such power, but none of them used the ability to act unilaterally to make major changes to policy; Reagan’s administration patented and perfected using executive power to accomplish his agenda. It was his attorney general – with the help of future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, then working for the Justice Department – who transformed the signing statement into a potent part of executive legislation and facilitated their being published in law textbooks.18 The president used a signing statement to construe the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Amendments’ requirement of mandatory enforcement to mean discretionary enforcement, completely changing the spirit of the law. He often used executive orders to defy Congress, notably using an executive order to bring weak sanctions against South Africa just before legislation calling for strong ones would have passed. Reagan would issue 1,118 proclamations, the most of any president in history. This repurposing of executive tools like signing statements and proclamations would set a dangerous precedent for modern presidents." http://vurj.vanderbilt.edu/index.php/vurj/article/viewFile/3556/1738 (Great paper on this topic) So, to me, when you ignore history and put Obama first in a list that begins with the words "thanks to Obama," I can't see it as anything but partially blaming Obama. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, and that's fine, but I am just saying it looks awfully like blame.
You are right, though I actually meant it more as... Obama is listed, but historical abusers like Reagan aren't, but I did say it wrong.
Also, ... God, if Chaffetz is anywhere near this administration I am going to puke. FYI, Chaffetz worked for the Nu Skin, a "we are totally not a Pyramid scheme" Multi-level Marketing company before becoming a politician and takes money from them, is one of the ones constantly calling for Clinton and PP to be investigated, but is a shill for MLM that takes advantage of the poor and vulnerable.
Not intending anything by it. One part for the sake of brevity (it's a long list otherwise), which clearly has backfired. One part because I simply don't have as solid a grasp on details of aspects of Reagan's administration compared to those that came after him (yet), particularly regarding Emergency Powers (not just general Executive Powers, though obviously also an issue). One part just my mind focusing on current events and (more) recent history. Now I really must be off. As I said before, good luck to everyone.
For perspective, 25 million LESS jobs than we have now... would be 1995. So he wants to grow jobs by the same amount that it took the last 21 years to accomplish. Or to put it another way. California has 18 million jobs right now. So he somehow thinks he can create more jobs than the entire state of California currently has.
http://www.wvpolicy.org/forbes-best-states-for-business-dont-always-have-the-best-job-growth/ Best States For Business Don’t Always Have the Best Job Growth
That's not data ... someone with a bad cold eating a breadroll sneezed against a piece of paper. Dat correlation (or lack thereof) Sorry, just randomly poking my head in.
So according to the BBC, Trump said he would be keeping aspects of Obamacare. Which would be consistent with the idea that he will be toning down on his promises/threats.
Are you criticizing the... lack of visual polish? Or what? I am not sure I understand. The point of the graph is to show there is a lack of correlation between the cost of doing business and job growth - unlike, as it is often claimed, that lowering business costs immediately creates jobs.
