DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> America's Dictator
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 86, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/19/2009 02:40:31 PM · #51
Originally posted by Melethia:

I actually am curious. My American history/jurisprudence/powersthatbe info is not all that hot (even though I do work for the federal government) so I'm not sure what has gone down (so to speak) or why it is not within the purview of the office of the President. I suppose I can go google, but one always gets the condensed two-second view that way.


You won't get a response from the OP. He exists solely to make outrageous claims and then have people react to them. That's all he wants, and, well, he gets it, unfortunately.

As long as he does, he'll keep doing it too. Even 'intellectual' conversation on this subject will be tainted as long as it's being conducted in a thread that was started in this way, because it'll still 'justify' the button-pushing and give him opportunity to make continued baseless attacks.
06/19/2009 02:45:46 PM · #52
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by Melethia:

I actually am curious. My American history/jurisprudence/powersthatbe info is not all that hot (even though I do work for the federal government) so I'm not sure what has gone down (so to speak) or why it is not within the purview of the office of the President. I suppose I can go google, but one always gets the condensed two-second view that way.


You won't get a response from the OP. He exists solely to make outrageous claims and then have people react to them. That's all he wants, and, well, he gets it, unfortunately.

As long as he does, he'll keep doing it too. Even 'intellectual' conversation on this subject will be tainted as long as it's being conducted in a thread that was started in this way, because it'll still 'justify' the button-pushing and give him opportunity to make continued baseless attacks.


Agreed -- as I said on page one: "Please don't feed the troll".
06/19/2009 02:45:55 PM · #53
Just trying to clarify. What is the issue - that the President cannot change benefits for federal employees? That federal employees are getting more benefits? I really am not entirely clear on the original post. (At this point, I'm not asking the OP - he'll not tell me based on his most recent response. I'm just trying to find out what the situation is/was.)

Message edited by author 2009-06-19 14:46:33.
06/19/2009 03:00:24 PM · #54
Basically Melethia, he has decided all federal employees relations will be covered under the same benefit package regardless of whether or not they are maried under the current laws. He does not have this right.

From Wikipedia, seperation of power, US ...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
United States: three branches
Main article: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution
In the United States Constitution, Article I Section I gives Congress only those "legislative powers herein granted" and proceeds to list those permissible actions in Article I Section 8, while Section 9 lists actions that are prohibited for Congress. The vesting clause in Article II places no limits on the Executive branch, simply stating that, "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."[8] The Supreme Court holds "The judicial Power" according to Article III, and it established the implication of Judicial review in Marbury vs Madison.[9] The federal government refers to the branches as "branches of government", while some systems use "government" to describe the executive. The Executive branch has attempted to usurp power from Congress arguing for Separation of powers to include being the Commander in Chief of a standing army since the Civil war, executive orders, emergency powers and security classifications since WWII, national security, signing statements, and now the concept of a unitary executive.

[ edit ] Checks and balances
To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, and to induce the branches to cooperate, governance systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances", the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances allows for a system based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

Also known as Congress
Makes all laws.

Controls all the money; taxes, borrows, and sets the budget (with exception of unappropriated spending by central bank).


Has sole power to declare war.
Oversees, investigates, and makes the rules for the government and its officers.
Confirms the heads of the executive branch.
Confirms federal judicial appointments.
Ratifies treaties.
Originates cases of impeachment.
Preserves, protects and defends the Constitution
Faithfully executes the laws of the United States
Executes the instructions of Congress
May veto laws but the veto may be overridden by Congress by a 2/3 majority.
Executes the spending authorized by Congress
Executes the instructions of Congress when it declares war or makes rules for the military
Declares states of emergency and publishes regulations and executive orders
Appoints judges with the advice and consent of the Senate
President and Vice-President can be impeached and removed from office by Congress
Has the power to grant pardons for crimes against the United States
Determines which jurisdiction any given case falls under
Judges when a law is unconstitutional
Has the responsibility to administer Constitutional law and to apply it to constitutional disputes
Determines the disposition of prisoners
May legally compel testimony and the production of evidence as the law provides.
Judges and competently administers uniform policies via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. (The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.)
Oversees and administers members of the judiciary
Is subject to impeachment by Congress


[ edit ] Maintaining balance
The theoretical independence of the executive and legislative branches is partly maintained by the fact that they are separately elected and are held directly accountable to the public. There are also judicial prohibitions against certain types of interference in each others' affairs. (See "separation of powers" cases in the List of United States Supreme Court cases.) Judicial independence is maintained by life appointments of judges, with voluntary retirement, and a high threshold for removal by the legislature. In recent years, there have been accusations that the power to interpret the law is being misused (judicial activism) by some judges in the US. In the checks and balances system, the judicial branch has the right to say that something is unconstitutional, like a law or a bill (Credited to an opinion piece by Chief Justice John Marshall presiding over the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)).

The legal mechanisms constraining the powers of the three branches depend a great deal on the sentiment of the people. A common perception is that popular support establishes legitimacy and makes possible the actual implementation of legal authority. National crises (such as the Civil War, the Great Depression, pre-Pearl Harbor World War II, the Vietnam War) have been the times at which the principle of separation of powers has been most endangered, either through official "misbehavior" or through the willingness of the public to sacrifice such principles if more pressing problems are solved. The system of checks and balances is also self-reinforcing. Potential abuse of power may be deterred, and the legitimacy and sustainability of any power grab is hindered by the ability of the other two branches to take corrective action; though they still must actually do so, therefore accountability is not automatic. This is intended to reduce opportunities for tyranny sometimes.

However, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51 regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." Bicameralism was, in part, intended to reduce the relative power of the legislature by turning it against itself, by having "different modes of election and different principles of action." (This is one of the arguments against the popular election of Senators, which was instituted by the Seventeenth Amendment.) But when the legislature is unified, it can obtain dominance over the other branches.

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

Also known as Congress
Makes all laws.
Controls all the money; taxes, borrows, and sets the budget (with exception of unappropriated spending by central bank).
Has sole power to declare war.
Oversees, investigates, and makes the rules for the government and its officers.
Confirms the heads of the executive branch.
Confirms federal judicial appointments.
Ratifies treaties.
Originates cases of impeachment.
Preserves, protects and defends the Constitution
Faithfully executes the laws of the United States
Executes the instructions of Congress
May veto laws but the veto may be overridden by Congress by a 2/3 majority.
Executes the spending authorized by Congress
Executes the instructions of Congress when it declares war or makes rules for the military
Declares states of emergency and publishes regulations and executive orders
Appoints judges with the advice and consent of the Senate
President and Vice-President can be impeached and removed from office by Congress
Has the power to grant pardons for crimes against the United States
Determines which jurisdiction any given case falls under
Judges when a law is unconstitutional
Has the responsibility to administer Constitutional law and to apply it to constitutional disputes
Determines the disposition of prisoners
May legally compel testimony and the production of evidence as the law provides.
Judges and competently administers uniform policies via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. (The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.)
Oversees and administers members of the judiciary
Is subject to impeachment by Congress

Message edited by author 2009-06-19 15:10:26.
06/19/2009 03:05:35 PM · #55
It's good to be right, isn't it.
06/19/2009 03:13:24 PM · #56
To quote from the warning at the top of the wiki page quoted below:

'This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

* It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since February 2009.
* It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since February 2009.
* It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2009.

The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (February 2009).'
06/19/2009 03:34:29 PM · #57
Originally posted by Melethia:

Kind of an aside - I don't get US television and don't pay much attention to the political hoopla... anyway, I was paying a bill at the bank (a US affiliate for the military folks) and they had the TV on. Apparently one of the late night guys made a joke about Palin that didn't go over well. She retaliated (or her people did) and there was a brief quote that they showed that said something about "our brave men and women in uniform" from her camp. My question - did any of the joke or perceived attack have anything to do with the military? I ask, because it does irk me when "our brave men and women in uniform" are brought into any of that stuff if there's no correlation.

The reason for the military reference was just rhetoric. Republicans project an image of a deep caring for troops yet encourage knee jerk responses and overseas war while Democrats swear they aren't socialists by supporting health benefits for injured troops to encourage their "patriotic" segment. It's just banter and neither is genuine with their views when it comes down to policy because they need to compromise. It's posturing at its best.
06/19/2009 03:54:47 PM · #58
reverse psychology is such a wonderful thing :D
06/19/2009 03:58:52 PM · #59
OK, David - I'm lost. I can't quite follow what the list (which is posted twice) applies to - the President or Congress? I do understand separation of power (though I do think we've lost the bubble on separation of church and state but that's a whole 'nuther argument.) Did the President pass a law, or did he apply a law in a manner inconsistent with the separation of power? If he did, cannot Congress veto that application? I promise in a bit I shall go do some research on my own. At present I'm spending too much time reading forums on DPC and editing pictures. :-)
06/19/2009 04:00:07 PM · #60
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Kind of an aside - I don't get US television and don't pay much attention to the political hoopla... anyway, I was paying a bill at the bank (a US affiliate for the military folks) and they had the TV on. Apparently one of the late night guys made a joke about Palin that didn't go over well. She retaliated (or her people did) and there was a brief quote that they showed that said something about "our brave men and women in uniform" from her camp. My question - did any of the joke or perceived attack have anything to do with the military? I ask, because it does irk me when "our brave men and women in uniform" are brought into any of that stuff if there's no correlation.

The reason for the military reference was just rhetoric. Republicans project an image of a deep caring for troops yet encourage knee jerk responses and overseas war while Democrats swear they aren't socialists by supporting health benefits for injured troops to encourage their "patriotic" segment. It's just banter and neither is genuine with their views when it comes down to policy because they need to compromise. It's posturing at its best.

Well as one of those military members, I'm not all that keen on pulling us into arguments that have no bearing on what we do. But I suppose that's neither here nor there, is it?
06/19/2009 04:13:39 PM · #61
Originally posted by David Ey:

Basically Melethia, he has decided all federal employees relations will be covered under the same benefit package regardless of whether or not they are maried under the current laws. He does not have this right.

[Not] sorry to ruin your fairy tale, but he does. It's called an executive order, and the previous administration holds the record on issuing them. I don't recall you screaming, "Aaaaah, dictator!" over those... :-/
06/19/2009 04:22:58 PM · #62
From the AP:

Obama said he wants to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed and in its place a law that would give the partners of gay and lesbian federal employees health insurance and survivor benefits, among other things.

"I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it," Obama pledged, flanked by lawmakers and advocates at his Oval Office desk.

Without that repeal, Obama's ultimate goal of extending health benefits would have to wait. Even those who joined Obama at the signing recognized it was only a first step to achieve what they were promised.

"The community has been growing frustrated and the administration has been working on this since Day One," said Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

Facing fierce anger, Obama approved small changes in benefits available to same-sex couples. For instance, employees' domestic partners can be added to a government insurance program that pays for long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease. They also can take sick leave to care for a sick partner or non-biological child.

Even before Obama signed the memorandum, some agencies had voluntarily offered the benefits Obama guaranteed with his signature.

But health care benefits — the ultimate goal for many gay activists — remained forbidden by Congress.


To summarize the situation, Obama promised to work towards ending all discrimination towards same-sex couples during his campaign. He is working with some members of congress to have the Defense of Marriage Act repealed. Unless and until that happens there's nothing he (or anybody) can do to bring full health care benefits to same sex couples, a major issue to the gay and lesbian community (and hopefully to all of us, but that's another story). In the meanwhile, there are certain, limited things he can do as, essentially, gestures of goodwill.

And that's what he's trying to do. There's nothing dictatorial about it, unless you think all bosses, by definition, have dictatorial powers. If you think that allowing members of unmarried partnerships compassionate leave to care for sick children, for example, is unjdermining the fabric of American society, you have major issues IMO.

R.
06/19/2009 04:24:51 PM · #63
Thanks, Robert - that clarifies quite a bit.
06/19/2009 04:41:33 PM · #64
So it is just for same sex couples? Not for couples that may be living together, but not married? (since my original question wasn't answered, and I'm still wondering?)
06/19/2009 04:43:13 PM · #65
Originally posted by Melethia:

Thanks, Robert - that clarifies quite a bit.

Unfortunately, it does nothing to clarify what the OP is upset about.

STILL waiting for that answer.....
06/19/2009 04:44:04 PM · #66
I suggest somebody change the title of this thread to "Homophobia is Alive in America". And leave it in rant.
06/19/2009 04:46:22 PM · #67
Originally posted by karmat:

So it is just for same sex couples? Not for couples that may be living together, but not married? (since my original question wasn't answered, and I'm still wondering?)

That's what I don't understand as welll. What about unmarried partners?

What about cohabitants of convenience, such as widows/widowers, sisters and/or brothers who share quarters and living expenses and are guardians for each others' needs?

It's not just about same sex committed relationships that are outside these situations.

Equal rights are supposed to be for all.

There are many situations that are slightly outside the box that are legitimate exceptions to the rule.
06/19/2009 04:53:18 PM · #68
Originally posted by Ken:

I suggest somebody change the title of this thread to "Homophobia is Alive in America". And leave it in rant.

We could. But I think there's more to the rant than just homophobia. I think that's just the current soapbox for the standard party divisiveness. For the record, I belong to neither party. I have my reservations about both of them. I'm sure someone will explain, but I've never quite figured why the Right Side wants government to stay out of the business of businesses, but want to dictate what goes on in one's home and how to live one's personal life. Also think the Left Side tends to remove the need for personal responsibility; the government will provide! In some situations, yeah, but in most cases a bit more personal responsibility might be the ticket.
06/19/2009 05:03:50 PM · #69
Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by Ken:

I suggest somebody change the title of this thread to "Homophobia is Alive in America". And leave it in rant.

We could. But I think there's more to the rant than just homophobia. I think that's just the current soapbox for the standard party divisiveness. For the record, I belong to neither party. I have my reservations about both of them. I'm sure someone will explain, but I've never quite figured why the Right Side wants government to stay out of the business of businesses, but want to dictate what goes on in one's home and how to live one's personal life. Also think the Left Side tends to remove the need for personal responsibility; the government will provide! In some situations, yeah, but in most cases a bit more personal responsibility might be the ticket.


Good points and perhaps you're right. I think I've had too many conversations with people who want to ban gay marriage when the real issue is homophobia...
06/19/2009 05:15:53 PM · #70
Originally posted by Ken:


Good points and perhaps you're right. I think I've had too many conversations with people who want to ban gay marriage when the real issue is homophobia...

What other reason is there?
06/19/2009 06:00:45 PM · #71
Originally posted by SaraR:

To quote from the warning at the top of the wiki page quoted below:

'This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

* It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since February 2009.
* It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since February 2009.
* It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2009.

The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (February 2009).'


What are you trying to say SaraR? This is one of the reasons I suggest you do your own research. You might start by reading the Constitution. You can get a handy, fits in your pocket copy HEREfree.
06/19/2009 06:16:03 PM · #72
Originally posted by Melethia:

OK, David - I'm lost. I can't quite follow what the list (which is posted twice) applies to - the President or Congress? I do understand separation of power (though I do think we've lost the bubble on separation of church and state but that's a whole 'nuther argument.) Did the President pass a law, or did he apply a law in a manner inconsistent with the separation of power? If he did, cannot Congress veto that application? I promise in a bit I shall go do some research on my own. At present I'm spending too much time reading forums on DPC and editing pictures. :-)


Who knows what he has really done. We do know he has taken over lending institutions and car companies and said, the day before I started this post, that he was giving the full benefits to all the "friends", (or what ever you wish to call them,) of government employees.
Do you remember the so called "bailout" that was pushed thru congress?....hundreds of pages that no one had read?....just had to be done right now....I doubt we know yet the damage done by this BS bill.
06/19/2009 06:21:35 PM · #73
Shannon basically has it down. If you suddenly are mad at a president using an Executive Order then you best point the finger at Bush/Cheney who expanded the powers of the executive branch more than any other president since probably Lincoln. You can't be ok with it when the president aligns with your political ideology than bitch when the opposition does the same thing.

Frankly I'm waiting to see how the Republicans squirm and complain the moment the Democratic senate threatens to use the "nuclear option" to avoid a filibuster of some future topic. The irony is going to be both delicious and sickening.

Message edited by author 2009-06-19 18:21:52.
06/19/2009 10:43:15 PM · #74
Originally posted by David Ey:

Who knows what he has really done.

So you're saying that you don't either, correct?

Originally posted by David Ey:

We do know he has taken over lending institutions and car companies and said, the day before I started this post, that he was giving the full benefits to all the "friends", (or what ever you wish to call them,) of government employees.

Taken over the lending institutions and car companies.....the two institutions who have most horribly abused their own livelihood and prospects of survival by incompetence and wastefulness......

Hey, here's a thought.....Let them fix their own problems, or die like they should in a free enterprise system.

And your homophobia is painting you as rabid.
Originally posted by David Ey:

Do you remember the so called "bailout" that was pushed thru congress?....hundreds of pages that no one had read?....just had to be done right now....I doubt we know yet the damage done by this BS bill.

So......you have the answer to this issue 'cause you've read all those hundreds of pages and can give us a synopsis of the crash course with destiny that looms before us, right?
06/20/2009 12:57:50 AM · #75
Originally posted by David Ey:

Do you remember the so called "bailout" that was pushed thru congress?....hundreds of pages that no one had read?....just had to be done right now....I doubt we know yet the damage done by this BS bill.


wasn't the TARP plan and bailout passed about a month before the election?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/16/2025 10:07:43 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/16/2025 10:07:43 PM EDT.