Skip to main content

The Daily Caller interviewed Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D) IL and he had an interesting idea and made it sound like it may actually be under consideration. It is to declare a national emergency and have the federal government directly hire millions of Americans to rebuild the nation and our economy.

http://dailycaller.com/...


Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”

This is the type of action that the people want to see. It's Extreme but I think the American people would overwhelmingly side with the President if he were to do this and punish those who stood in the way. I really would love to see this. I'd love to see the Republicans and right wing media freak out and try to stop it and watch the entire nation turn against them with a vengeance that they probably cannot even fathom at this point.

Obama, please do this. It would be the bravest move a President has made in probably a hundred years or so but it is probably what is required for these times. Occupy Wall Street is a great thing but it alone may not be enough to turn the tide. We can't lose in 2012 and we all need to know exactly where you stand and where they stand when it comes to putting Americans back to work and rebuilding America for the good of our nation.

Poll

Should Obama Declare A National Emergency and Create Millions of Federal Jobs Without Congress

58%77 votes
36%48 votes
5%7 votes

| 132 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't worry (6+ / 0-)

    He will sign the three FTAs.  That will create millions of jobs.  Just not in America.

    “If you think I can be bought for five thousand dollars, I'm offended." Rick Perry.

    by Paleo on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 09:13:46 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps he should ask Little Timmy what to do? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EveningStarNM

    Obama ain't gonna do shit.  Face it.  

  •  If we must have a Unitary Executive (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HartfordTycoon, koNko, bushbuster, dfarrah

    at least he can do some good.

    An illusion can never be destroyed directly... SK.

    by Thomas Twinnings on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 09:18:16 AM PDT

    •  He absolutely can do this...under the Patriot Act (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah, HartfordTycoon, carver, PBen

      From a diary I wrote earlier,  "If Bush can use national security to start a war, Obama can use it for a WPA":

      Under the Patriot Act, Congress defines what “critical infrastructure” is  —  “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.” They state that “a continuous national effort is required ... to ensure the reliable provision [of infrastructure] ... critical to maintaining ... economic prosperity, and quality of life in the United States.” (quotes are from the Patriot Act, with emphasis added).

      They further went on to establish that “it is the POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES that any physical or virtual disruption of the operation of the critical infrastructures of the United States be rare, brief, geographically limited in effect, manageable, and minimally detrimental to the economy, human and government services ... and that actions necessary to achieve the policy ... be carried out.” I think this means that the president is not limited in any way as to how he implements this policy on the ground. Because Congress has defined critical infrastructure as an issue of national security, he could  even fund repairs out of one of the biggest pots of money out there — the defense department.

      The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our infrastructure an overall rating of "D":

      Obama could determine that areas with a D or lower — aviation, dams, drinking water, energy, hazardous waste, inland waterways, levees, roads, schools, transit and wastewater — are so vital that they must be repaired. Then as commander in chief, he is empowered to direct any funds necessary — including defense and homeland security funds — to correct these deficiencies.

      Obama has the power he needs to set up a new WPA. If Bush can misuse national security to lie us into Iraq, President Obama can use that same authority to put Americans back to work.

      You know how I can tell that corporations and the rich can pay higher taxes? Because they can afford to buy politicians ... MinistryOfTruth

      by bushbuster on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 01:29:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, that's deeply insane. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, elmo, erush1345
  •  I don't understand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HartfordTycoon

    what this is, or how--or if--it would work. 'National emergency' sounds good to me. 'Extra-constitutional' sounds criminal.

    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

    by GussieFN on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 09:22:11 AM PDT

  •  With all due respect (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HartfordTycoon, VClib

    what makes this country great is our constitutional republic.  Checks and balances?  Remember?

    An overt action of the executive branch to bypass the elected representatives of the congressional is not a formula for success.  Elective majorities in  congress come and go based on the will of the people.  

    You would not ascribe the "positive" aspects of this proposal if  the Repubs held the WH.  Be careful what you ask for.

    The right approach is to take back the House, insure a continued Dem majority in the Senate and reelect the President.

    Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    by EdMass on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 09:26:03 AM PDT

    •  So, where were you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah

      On the extraordinary renditions, torture and assassinations?

      Just curious.

      Legally, I agree, but Americans seemed to stop caring about Constitutional separations of power and unlimited extension of executive powers some time before Pelosi took the due process of Impeachment off the table and recent diaries regarding Obamas further extensions seem to concern only a small minority of Daily Kos members.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 11:01:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can the prez even do what Jackson is suggesting? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HartfordTycoon, VClib
  •  insanity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, erush1345

    He would be immediately  impeached, rightfully so. That's why we have elections.

  •  I am not in. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, johnny wurster
    I'd love to see the Republicans and right wing media freak out and try to stop it and watch the entire nation turn against them with a vengeance that they probably cannot even fathom at this point.

    Count me among those who would try to stop it. The only thing JJ has managed to accomplish is to disqualify himself as a legislator.
  •  “extra-constitutional” means unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)
    •  Key point being "Enemies both foriegn and DOMESTIC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HartfordTycoon

      He simply has to say that what the Republicans and their Wall Street henchman have done is pure treason witnessed by millions. And millions are suffering as a direct result.  

      Unfortunately, the Congress would impeach him at the earliest opportunity.  Because even during a national emergency, there are contingencies for the continued operation of the Congress.

      --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

      by chipoliwog on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 10:32:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Declaring the majority... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, chipoliwog

        ...of the duly-elected Congress to be traitors simply because they don't take the policy stances he'd prefer would, in fact, be an impeachable offense, yes—if for no other reason than that members of Congress are protected from legal prosecution for anything they do (or, I suppose, don't do) on the floor of Congress.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 10:59:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The only way I think the administration (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HartfordTycoon

    could do this within the constitution would be for funds and expenditures already authorized by Congress but not yet allocated or awarded to specific contractors be awarded to other contractors who agree to hire people even if it results in lower profit or a loss for their firms.

    To do this probably requires going around or firing certain cabinet members and running the budgeting and contracting process for the administration by temporarily appointed undersecretaries or "czars".

    In general if this can be done it should be done. And ASAP. Like now, certainly before the winter sets in.

    H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

    by Knarfc on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 10:44:18 AM PDT

  •  POTUS absolutely has this power under NEA-- (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HartfordTycoon, dfarrah, bushbuster

    National Emergency Act of 1976.  Totally legal and Congress can only stop him by passing a joint resolution.

    I wrote a diary on this.  Obama gets treasury to issue 3-5 $100 billion coins then sells them to the Fed for the money--no Congressional input into how he spends it.

    Of course, the gop would impeach him--for putting 5 million people to work.

    My best guess was a reflection that did not look back, an image lost in every mirror.

    by Zacapoet on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 10:45:34 AM PDT

    •  I'd love to see them try that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bushbuster

      It would be political suicide to impeach him after the unemployment rate basically dropped to zero.

      "Opulence! I has it. I like the best!"

      by HartfordTycoon on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 10:55:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How quickly do you think that joint resolution.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster

      ....would be passed?

      Totally legal and Congress can only stop him by passing a joint resolution.

      My money's on it taking only about an hour after he announced what he was going to do.

      And the Articles of Impeachment would be drawn up a few hours after that.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 11:01:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  With what money? (0+ / 0-)

    If the President did this, it wouldn't be "extraconstitutional"—it would be "unconstitutional."

    The Constitution gives Congress, and Congress alone, the power of the purse.

    If Jesse Jackson (D-IL) wants the President to have the power to spend more federal money to hire people, he should draft a bill to that effect and convince a majority of his colleagues in both houses to vote for it. I'm sure the President would sign it.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 10:57:52 AM PDT

  •  Not insane at all (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HartfordTycoon, dfarrah, bushbuster

    Lots of neggies here on the website. But all you need to do is travel around the US a little bit to realize how much is NOT being done right now. Roads are not being repaired, parks are not being taken care of. Heck, come to Brooklyn - we can't even get trash removed.

    So forget about high-speed rail and renewable energy and all the jobs transforming our country into a modern nation would bring. How about taking care of what we already have? Repair the roads, clean the trash. Heck, maybe even clean areas damaged by pollution - before the taint spreads even further.

    Or even better - how about ending the practice of prison labor and giving those jobs to Americans who need them? Thousands of prisoners are doing work for state governments for essentially free, I believe. Which is great - keep em busy, sure! - but a little ridiculous when we have americans who need work. (Maybe we should all go to prison so we can get jobs.)

    The details may need to be worked out, but I've been advocating adding jobs to take care of our needs for a while. Eventually it'll catch up with us, if we don't.

  •  Why couldn't BO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HartfordTycoon

    just whip up a memorandum to justify his action, just like he and GWB did to justify whatever military action they wanted to take?

    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 01:26:03 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site