Skip to main content

View Diary: Hundreds of ideas on how the executive branch can create jobs without congressional action (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Cite to Constitution, please? (4+ / 0-)

    Last time I checked, it was Democrats who maintained the quaint idea that not even the Pres is above the law. So if you say "the Pres can do X," please show us the law (or Consitutional clause) that says the Pres can do X.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:37:54 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's nice if we still lived in the 1700s (0+ / 0-)

      We don't. We live in a modern state with modern institutions. Technically, the constitution doesn't explicitly say the President can mandate pollution controls, or regulate CO2. Barring a total rewrite of the constitution (which I would support in theory), we must look at the constitution in a modern eye, for solving modern problems.

      •  Keep reading. (3+ / 0-)

        The Clean Air Act, a law passed by Congress and signed by the Pres (I forget which one) in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, authorizes the EPA (which is an executive branch agency under the Pres's authority) to regulate CO2...according to the Supreme Court, which heard the case and issued its decision, in accordance with its Constitutionally-prescribed role:

        Supreme Court Upholds EPA's Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

        WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2011 (ENS) - The U.S. Supreme Court today reaffirmed its finding that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant subject to control under the Clean Air Act and upheld the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the greenhouse gas.


        http://www.ens-newswire.com/...

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:12:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I said, not Explicitly (0+ / 0-)

          Regulating CO2 isn't in the constitution. It's simply implied that the federal government can make those regulations for the "common good".

          This feeds into my overall point; we need to stop asking what the constitution allows Pres. Obama to do. We need to ask what the constitution explicitly forbids the President to do. And we need to act on those. If they don't make it though the court, so what? At least we tried, and weren't concerned about hurting Republican feelings.

          •  Regulating pollutants (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HeyMikey, Justanothernyer

            is based on the commerce clause (commerce meaning intercourse, and I'd say air pollution which cannot be contained within a state obviously qualifies). The phrase "common good" does not appear in the Constitution.  Wanting to live according to our fundamental law is not about being "concerned about hurting Republican feelings."

            Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

            by David Kaib on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:30:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

              Were we to read the Constitution in the Originalist, Textualist way, controlling CO2 wouldn't be interstate commerce. Hell, it wouldn't be commerce at all.

              It takes a liberal reading of the consitution to classify CO2 as interstate commerce. A liberal, modern reading, one that adapts the constitution to modern day problems. This reading gives the federal government (the Executive) much, much more power then the originalist, textualist reading does.

              I'm not so much concerned (especially with Barack Obama in office) with weather a measure to strengthen America and create jobs is explicitly constitutional. We'll figure out the constitutionality of it later, when America has no unemployment and the oligarchs are castrated and the republicans are a bad memory.

              •  Actually, the idea that commerce (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HeyMikey

                means intercourse, is a textualist argument (some would say originalist even here, but I find that a category largely without much analytic content.) I think the modern idea that commerce means business was not how the text was understood at the time it was adopted.  

                Regardless, a liberal reading isn't the same as 'reading into the text what ever one likes.'  Saying the Constitution imposes limits which ought to respected does not mean adopting conservative so called originalist ideas. I find it odd to talk about the necessity for acting without regard for the Constitution when both the president on his own as well as Congress as both failing to use the tools they have and actively embracing policies that will increase unemployment.

                Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

                by David Kaib on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:53:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You are more dangerous to decent people... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Justanothernyer, johnny wurster

                ...than you are to the oligarchs and Republicans you claim to oppose.

                "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:01:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site