Home  »  General  »  “Getting The Job Done Across A Front Of Issues”: Obama Plans To Dictate Law By Executive Power

“Getting The Job Done Across A Front Of Issues”: Obama Plans To Dictate Law By Executive Power



Feb 13, 2010 24 Comments ›› Pat Dollard

13obama_ca0-popup

New York Times:

Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power

WASHINGTON — With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.

Mr. Obama has not given up hope of progress on Capitol Hill, aides said, and has scheduled a session with Republican leaders on health care later this month. But in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign.

“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat. And Mr. Obama’s success this week in pressuring the Senate to confirm 27 nominations by threatening to use his recess appointment power demonstrated that executive authority can also be leveraged to force action by Congress.

Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so. His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.

In an effort to demonstrate forward momentum, the White House is also drawing more attention to the sorts of actions taken regularly by cabinet departments without much fanfare. The White House heavily promoted an export initiative announced by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke last week and nearly $1 billion in health care technology grants announced on Friday by Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, and Hilda L. Solis, the labor secretary.

White House officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency.

“The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”

The use of executive authority during times of legislative inertia is hardly new; former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush turned to such powers at various moments in their presidencies, and Mr. Emanuel was in the thick of carrying out the strategy during his days as a top official in the Clinton White House.

But Mr. Obama has to be careful how he proceeds because he has been critical of both Mr. Clinton’s penchant for expending presidential capital on small-bore initiatives, like school uniforms, and Mr. Bush’s expansive assertions of executive authority, like the secret program of wiretapping without warrants.

Already, Mr. Obama has had to reconcile his campaign-trail criticism of Mr. Bush for excessive use of so-called signing statements to bypass parts of legislation with his own use of such tactics. After a bipartisan furor in Congress last year, Mr. Obama stopped issuing such signing statements, but aides said last month that he still reserves the right to ignore sections of bills he considers unconstitutional if objections have been lodged previously by the executive branch.

Another drawback of the executive power strategy is that actions taken unilaterally by the executive branch may not be as enduring as decisions made through acts of Congress signed into law by a president. For instance, while the E.P.A. has been determined to have the authority to regulate carbon emissions, the administration would rather have a market-based system of pollution permits, called cap and trade, that requires legislation.

Still, presidents have logged significant accomplishments through the stroke of a pen. In 1996, on his own authority, Mr. Clinton turned a 2,600-square-mile section of southern Utah into the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, in what was called at the time his boldest environmental move. Mr. Bush followed suit in 2006 by designating a 140,000-square-mile stretch of islands and ocean near Hawaii as the largest protected marine reserve in the world, in what some see as his most lasting environmental achievement.

The use of executive power came to a head this week when Mr. Obama confronted Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, about nominations held up in the Senate. In a meeting with Congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday, Mr. Obama turned to Mr. McConnell and vowed to use his power to appoint officials during Senate recesses if his nominations were not cleared.

By Thursday, the Senate had voted to confirm 27 of 63 nominations that had been held up, and the White House declared victory. Two administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Friday that the White House had drafted a list of about a dozen nominees for the president to appoint during the recess that just began, but most were among those cleared.

Mr. McConnell’s office denied that the president’s threat had anything to do with the confirmations, pointing out that the Senate regularly passes a batch of nominees before going on recess.

“All presidents get frustrated with the pace of nominations, and all Congresses say they’re doing their best, so it’s not a surprise,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mr. McConnell. “But the fact is nominees are being confirmed, particularly those nominated since December.”

The recess appointment power stems from the days when lawmakers were in session only part of the year, but in modern times presidents have used it to circumvent opposition in the Senate. Mr. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 of them to full-time positions, while Mr. Bush made 171, with 99 to full-time jobs. Mr. Obama has yet to make any.

Those given such appointments can serve until the end of the next Congressional session. As a senator, Mr. Obama was less enamored with recess appointments. When Mr. Bush used the power to install John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bolton “damaged goods.”

But the White House argued that Mr. Obama’s choices have been held up more than Mr. Bush’s and left open the prospect of giving recess appointments to some of those still held up, including Craig Becker, a labor lawyer whose nomination for a seat on the National Labor Relations Board has been blocked.

“If the stalling tactics continue,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, “he’s not ruling out using recess appointments for anybody that he’s nominated.”


  • ji

    dictatorship is what he wants by increments.
    We need to fight him every step of the way

  • David

    The democrats in congress have been the major contributors to this new wave of stealing our Country by “executive order”. If they hadn’t acted like they own our Country, this would not be on the horizon. And the so called republican “leadership” fails to understand just how fucking angry WE THE PEOPLE are about all of the lies, taxation, spending and ignoring WE THE PEOPLE have had to put up with.

  • brotherscoobs

    no surprises there :roll:

  • Bobby E

    Wow … we’ll soon have our very own Chavez. Aren’t we blessed? Let the revolution begin!

  • Tim Roesch

    Have you seen this story?

    http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/28990438/whose-business-is-it-anyway.htm#q=Home+child+care+labor+union

    Apparently providers of home based child care found themselves unionized and ‘democratic’ politicians found union contributions to their campaigns.

    Sounds like someone needs to get ACTIVE in Michigan.

    • Nanny

      Tim – There are plenty of people in Michigan who are pissed about this and asking questions but we have politicians here that are so owned by the unions that this stuff just keeps on putting us farther in the toilet. The governor approved this shell organization thru the AFL-CIO on a community college campus. What is truly disgusting is our hard earned tax dollars are going to Washington then sent back to Michigan as subsidies for child care and the union dues are subtracted from the subsidy. So I am paying union dues thru my tax dollars against my will.

    • Tim Roesch

      Please do not take my post as an accusation or finger pointing.

      I am just saying that it would seem that ‘people’ in Michigan might want to consider this a shot across the bow by those who think ‘you’ (the general ‘you’) will just roll over and take it.

      What can be done to make it clear that forced unionization WILL NOT stand?

      I don’t know what I can do from MA but whatever I can do I am willing to. I am just guessing people actually IN Michigan would be able to more stuff then some random MA dude.

    • Nanny

      No offence taken – just disgusted that our once great state is being flushed down the toilet by democraps and unions. Detroit and Flint are democrap and union strongholds with the most population and that’s why we end up with these shit heads in office. Believe me there are many groups trying to fight this crap. Every time a hole gets plugged they open up a new one and the ship just keeps on sinking.

  • Sully

    I don’t see where any of it is a political winner for Him or His Prog cronies but He’s really pretty stupid for a intalekshool.

    It’s all job killing horseshit.

    Poll #’s start their final drain circle in 3… 2…. 1….

  • settlesdown

    Go ahead asshole. Pass all you want through Exec. Order and the people will turn on you and vote your Dem buddies and your phony black ass out in 2012. :twisted:

  • political.fish

    Its the only option left. When the people don’t support you, and congress and SCOTUS are an impotent, effete, cesspool who have not the balls to support or remove him what else is a Marxist shitball to do?

  • thrasymakhos

    I am not an alarmist. Relatively few of Americans are prepared to believe the crap that is coming down the pike. But I’m telling you that this bastard and his ilk have no intention of leaving peacefully. They have the power, they are trying to erect a socialist heaven on earth, they are not going to willingly turn back to anybody power who does not share thier millennial views. Barry’s beloved Chairman Mao said that “Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” Push a “soft” socialist enough and you will find underneath a hard-core Stalinist. Look at what he wants to do with “Executive Orders.” I pray that this ends with a mighty vote and a whimper but given the fact that each side has an inherently different vision of how the world works, I don’t see how we can avoid bloodshed. Either them trying to subdue us, or us trying to keep from being subdued.

    • Bobby E

      A blood-letting would be good for the survival of the nation. In addition to the statement “them trying to subdue us, or us trying to keep from being subdued”, I submit one more option … us going on the offensive and subduing, trying, and executing all liberals. Otherwise, the nation becomes Cambridge, Mass. with idiots giving the orders.

    • thrasymakhos

      Bobby,
      I hope this doesn’t happen but I can, in my historical imagination, see the Republican Leadership going to this “joint conference” on health care, being gathered together, and then being arrested “in the name of the People” as “traitors to the people” and being “detained” on the authority of an “Executive Order” for failing to “do the people’s business”. I know that it sounds crazy but I can see this coming unless…unless…and this is what is driving me mad.

      There is a giant, poisonous viper in the room with me and my American Family, and I don’t know what to do to stop it. I know that it seeks to devour me and mine based on the fact that it has swallowed whole nations and killed millions and millions of people around the world in the last 90 years. In my rational mind, my superego if you will, I know that they must be stopped at the ballot box. In my “ID” (sorry for the Freud) I just know that only blood and violence, and heroic sacraficial action will win me respite and rescue the family.

      As for me (ego) I am in the middle. I can’t stand the fact that people are trying to enslave me. I can’t stomach the vision of civil war with all its evils. I am waiting to see if events play out. There is a group of “progressives” who are not waiting because they know that this is “their time” and “historical necessity” is in their hands. What to do? I am right on the edge. I suspect that millions of patriots are.

      Sorry, I am droning now. Will stop. You understand my quandry. Thanks for listening.

    • Bobby E

      I’m with you, thrasymakhos. And, I too would wish that it wouldn’t happen but my ear to the ground tells me otherwise. But, I’m with you. My post wasn’t done in disagreement with you … only trying to add some ‘beef’ to the argument.

  • thrasymakhos

    Sorry – one more thing. I agree with you in spirit. Go on the offensive, capture, try and execute all liberals. I would help you do that. But what scares the hell out of me is that once you and I go to it where to we stop? Look at the French Revolution, look at the Russian Revolution, look at all the other socialist revolutions that have gone on. They all follow the same pattern. I know that you are a good person, otherwise you wouldn’t be posting here. I am a good person as well. But can you imagine what you and I would do with the self-seized power of life and death over people that disagree with us even if we do consider it self-defense of a sort. We would end up as monsters standing on an ash heap.

    That is why I forbear. There may come a point where I have no choice but to take up arms. I just hope to God that I will have the wisdom to know when to pick them up and, even more importantly, when to lay them down and not end up with something worse than what I am fighting.

    Thanks again.

    • Gaige Mosher

      That’s why some partitioning of the country might be best. Say let them have the East Coast out to about I-95 from Virginia to Maine? Or simple banishment to Canada or Europe.

    • thrasymakhos

      Now banishment is something that I could really get behind. Excellent Idea!

    • Bobby E

      Exile is a wonderful thing. Since liberals do not love this country as it was founded, it’s a win-win situation … we get rid of them and they get to go to the ‘paradise’ of their choice.

    • Lock and Load

      Uh, we don’t need their shit up here in Canada – there’s already enough to go around. Let them go back to Europe, where all this disease of liberalism started :roll: :???:

    • Bobby E

      I wouldn’t worry, L&L. They seem to be more infatuated with places like Iran, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and Europe.

  • Tyler520

    In very short time, we will officially be able to refer to him as King.

    • political.fish

      He is the Monkey King.

    • Bobby E

      He is the Lyin King.