afchic
02-16-2012, 09:39
Thoughts that have been rolling around in my head the last few days, as to why the Dems think that Obama interloping into people's every day affairs is a good thing. It seems he has taken the advice of those like Maxine Waters and decided to make new laws via "Executive Order". So we have the contraception mandate, we have the school lunch debate, we have Czars that answer to no one but the POTUS. we have recess appointment while Congress isn't in recess, etc etc etc...
Rougish Lawyer, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't presedent play a large role in determining the constitutionality of a law?
So my thought/question is: Are they so short sighted as to think a Republican is never going to win the Presidency again, and thereby being able to use the presedent set by Obama to do whatever he/she likes when he/she likes? Because you can bet if a Republican POTUS was doing this crap the Dems would be up in arms.
That is how I have started addressing my arguments to friends who are left leaning "If George Bush was doing such things, how would you feel?" And they usually come out with "That wouldn't be right". So if it is ok for the current POTUS, why not a Republican one?
When the Republicans held both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House, the Dems would go on and on about how Congress is abdicating their responsibility in checks and balances, and allowing Bush to do whatever he wanted. Now they are guilty of the same thing. Why don't our Congress critters take their job of checks and balances more seriously, regardless of what party they belong?
I think if the Rebulican candidates can start making that argument against Obama, instead of arguing amongst themselves, we would have a much bigger chance of taking over the White House as well as the Senate.
The best line I have read lately was on a blog on NR. It said if Democrats are scared of Santorum and his social conservatism, they should be really scared of Obamacare and the precedent it has set for all future Presidents.
Rougish Lawyer, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't presedent play a large role in determining the constitutionality of a law?
So my thought/question is: Are they so short sighted as to think a Republican is never going to win the Presidency again, and thereby being able to use the presedent set by Obama to do whatever he/she likes when he/she likes? Because you can bet if a Republican POTUS was doing this crap the Dems would be up in arms.
That is how I have started addressing my arguments to friends who are left leaning "If George Bush was doing such things, how would you feel?" And they usually come out with "That wouldn't be right". So if it is ok for the current POTUS, why not a Republican one?
When the Republicans held both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House, the Dems would go on and on about how Congress is abdicating their responsibility in checks and balances, and allowing Bush to do whatever he wanted. Now they are guilty of the same thing. Why don't our Congress critters take their job of checks and balances more seriously, regardless of what party they belong?
I think if the Rebulican candidates can start making that argument against Obama, instead of arguing amongst themselves, we would have a much bigger chance of taking over the White House as well as the Senate.
The best line I have read lately was on a blog on NR. It said if Democrats are scared of Santorum and his social conservatism, they should be really scared of Obamacare and the precedent it has set for all future Presidents.