Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » State of the Union

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: State of the Union
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's the early results from PolitiFact

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/27/fact-checking-obamas-sta te-union-speech/

Just one hum dinger for this morning.

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama touted his efforts to bar lobbyists from his administration.

"We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions," he said on Jan. 27, 2010.

That rang a bell with us because we have tracked a campaign promise he made on that topic. He had promised that "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."

We rated that one a Promise Broken because his policy has substantial loopholes that have allowed Obama to essentially decide when he wants to ignore the rule.

He's right that on his first day in office, he signed an executive order to bar lobbyists from his administration.

But the order also included a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. Waivers are granted by the administration itself, so they are little more than the administration saying it's okay for the lobbyist to work for the administration. The executive order says a waiver may be granted if "the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction" or "it is in the public interest. ... The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy." Another provision allows lobbyists to serve if they agree to recuse themselves from discussions related to their former jobs.

Still, open government groups have given Obama high marks for reducing the number of lobbyists at the White House and for making the process more transparent than other administrations.

"I think that by any fair measure ... the reported number is certainly much fewer," said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center. "In fact, I'd say the waivers are good. It allows them to go in and say, 'Here's someone we think has unique skills.' "

One of the first Obama appointees to get a waiver was William J. Lynn to be deputy secretary of defense, the No. 2 position at the Pentagon. Lynn was a Raytheon lobbyist for six years, lobbying extensively on a broad range of defense-related issues.

Jocelyn Frye, director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady, also got a waiver. Previously, Frye lobbied for the National Partnership for Women and Families from 2001 to 2008. The organization advocates for fairness in the workplace, access to health care and "policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family."

And Cecilia Muñoz, director of intergovernmental affairs in the Executive Office of the President, manages the White House's relationships with state and local governments and is a principal liaison to the Hispanic community. Formerly, Muñoz formerly lobbied for National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization.

The White House has issued seven waivers to its ethics rules, which apply to lobbyists as well as to people who served as officers and directors of a company or organization. And agencies have issued 15. The White House has said these waivers are quite rare -- less than 1 percent of the thousands of appointments that have been made.

What about those recusals we mentioned earlier? The administration has not made public how many of these have been issued. We do know that Mark Patterson, the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, took one -- but that information was only released by the White House after lawmakers and media reports started asking questions. Public records show Patterson worked as a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs in 2008.

Obama said that he has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." But that's not the case. We know of at least four that have taken on policymaking roles in the Obama administration -- Frye's title even contains the word "policy." While these appointments may be few and far between, and while those who made the cut have signed special waivers, we give Obama a False on this claim.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Still reading the transcript here...

Did he actually say that because the Senate wouldn't form his commision that he's just going to ignore them and use executive order to make it happen anyway?!?!

Did he just tell the Legislative Branch to go F**K themselves? (pardon my asterikseseses)

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't find a single precedent for a president proposing a bill, the Congress voting it down and then the President overriding the vote to make the bill into law without Congressional approval.

Please tell me that noone here thinks that this is a good line to cross...

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
why don't you post what bill you are talking about?

i can think of several cases where Bush wrote into his signing statements that he would ignore the laws.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_o f_laws/

 -

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quote from the State of the Union...


Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

I will see if I can find the exact bill number and post it.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and chief co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009 with Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), today reacted to the Senate’s defeat, in a 53-46 vote, of the Conrad-Gregg amendment to the debt limit bill. Under a previous unanimous consent agreement, approval of the amendment would have required 60 votes.

“The Senate’s defeat of the Conrad-Gregg amendment is yet another indication that Congress is more concerned with the next election than the next generation. This bipartisan task force is the best and most realistic option for tackling our tremendous levels of debt. To discard it is a major set-back for the future generations of Americans who will be left to pay down our debt at the expense of their standard of living and future economic growth.

“The statutory structure of the Conrad-Gregg task force is critical to this exercise, as it will guarantee true bipartisanship, expedited consideration of the task force’s policy recommendations, and an up-or-down vote. In fact, a statutory task force like the one outlined in the Conrad-Gregg legislation may be the last and best chance to address the coming crisis in a bipartisan way.”

Senator Gregg joined Chairman Conrad in introducing their updated Bipartisan Task Force (S. 2853) legislation in December, after originally introducing it in 2007. The Conrad-Gregg Bipartisan Task Force would create a commission of eight Democrats and eight Republicans from the Congress and two members from the Administration, who would be charged with making bipartisan recommendations to Congress on how to return the country to fiscal stability. These recommendations would be fast-tracked through Congress and guaranteed an up-or-down vote. Final passage would require supermajorities in both the Senate and House. In addition to Senators Conrad and Gregg, the bill currently has 27 co-sponsors.


http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100126/BLOGS10/100129613

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, you are complaining about this?

Ok, why did the Senate vote it down?

because fast tracking bills avoids the cloture vote (the 60 vote majority needed to end debate)

so, by creating the commission anyway? Obama is creating a task force to make recomendations to congress to increase FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, but he cannot force them to be fast tracked. Only a vote by the Senate to suspend the rules can avoid the cloture vote...

i beleive the president can require that Congress remain in emergency session until they vote on abill one way or another, but that is a pretty far-fetched notion except in real emergencies.

Obama is doing the right thing by being adversarial to Congress, the system was designed to be adversarial, it's part of th echaecks and valances principles.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glass, I don't give a rat's @ss what the actual bill is about. It could be about banning jay walking on saturdays when Neptune is in harmony with Uranus....I don't care!

The point of contention (wow, that's not nearly a strong enough descriptor) is that Obama just said that he will make laws whether the Senate approves or not.

Let that sink in for a minute.

He's not adding a signing statement to a bill noting his disagreement (like you noted for Pres. Bush). In the lack of Line Item Veto power, a signing statement is the best any president can do.

Still sinking in?

Obama is saying that he will make laws wihtout the Senate.

Have you got the picture yet?

He's claiming the authority to make laws with no debate, no vote, no veto. Just his commands becoming law.

Last I checked? That's not how a democratic republic opperates...

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sorry,, i dont see where he said he will pass any laws all by himself, him alone... with no authorization from anyone...show me please.

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just in case you didn't listen to the State of the Union, read the transcript, or at the very least read my postings above....

Here, again, is his words on national TV.

Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.

Ok, let's break it down...he endorsed a bill to create a commision..

Bill is voted on by House...passes.

Bill is voted on by Senate...defeated.

IMPORTANT

Bill did NOT become law.

Obama now says that despite that, he will decree that it passes and becomes law anyway...


What part of that do you think I'm misinterperating?

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
he wants to have a bill passed, that will create a commission to increase fiscal responsibility...and whats the law that he wants to pass?..i dont see it. sounds like you have a closed mind towards obama trying to help the people...are you that deep in the republican mire that you will cut off your nose to spite your face?...take a step back, a deep breath, and relax,,,youre going to give yourself a coronary ..

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, Jordan...

quote:
he wants to have a bill passed, that will create a commission to increase fiscal responsibility
Do you know what happens to a bill when it passes?

Think back to schoolhouse rock guys...that's right, a Bill is a LAW that hasn't been passed.

When a Bill passes, it becomes LAW.

Still with me?

This commission has to be created (normally) through legislative action (ie made law).

Here's a chart to help...

 -

What Obama is saying is that he doesn't have to follow this process. That he can just make a royal decree and make it so...

Is that what you want? A one man legislating machine?

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jordan is correct. there are many ways to create a commission.

so it will be a Presidential Commission instead of Congressional Commission.

you are totally wrong that "This commission has to be created (normally) through legislative action (ie made law)." The law will deteermine the abilities of the commision AND IT'S POWERS.


here:
REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S
PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

UNITED STATES SENATE


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_c over.htm

and then here:

President's Commission on U.S. Intelligence Capabilities Regarding WMD PDF Print
On February 6, 2004, President Bush issued Executive Order 13328, creating a nine-member commission to investigate intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. The Commission is chaired by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Governor and Senator Chuck Robb. Other members appointed are Senator John McCain; Lloyd Cutler, former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton; Rick Levin, President of Yale University; Admiral Bill Studeman, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Judge Pat Wald; Charles Vest, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Henry Rowen, professor emeritus of public policy and management at Stanford University, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a former Pentagon official.


http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2919&cat id=44:legislation

it's in either bodies prerogative to set up a commission, it's not the Senates or the Houses or the White Houses private domain...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sf..you need to work on your people skills...

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glass, if all it took was a presidential request, then why was it sent to Congress in the first place?

Second, if (for whatever reason) it had to be sent to Congress, why now is it ok for that reason to be ignored?

Third, if this is so innocuous, why did the DEMOCRATIC supermajority reject it?

Forth, have you read the bill's language?

Here's the link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-2853

It specifically contains language that prohibits a filibuster or other points of order against whatever this commission recommends.

Also, if the recommendations are passed in each house and then after commitee the senate doesn't like the new bill? Guess what? Tough beans:

TREATMENT OF COMPANION MEASURES IN THE SENATE- If following passage of the Task Force bill in the Senate, the Senate then receives the Task Force bill from the House of Representatives, the House-passed Task Force bill shall not be debatable. The vote on passage of the Task Force bill in the Senate shall be considered to be the vote on passage of the Task Force bill received from the House of Representatives.

And for funding?

From the amounts appropriated or made available and remaining unobligated under division A (other than under title X of division A) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), there is rescinded pro rata an aggregate amount equal to $9,000,000, which amount shall be made available without need for further appropriation to the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action to carry out the purposes of the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, and which shall remain available through fiscal year 2011. Not later than 14 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall administer the rescission and make available such amount to the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.

And that's just for starters, read the language of this pile. No wonder the DEMOCRATS voted against it.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
sf..you need to work on your people skills...

Perhaps.

But when I see our president throwing constitutional process out the window, I get a little agitated...

Sorry if I offended you in my zeal. (No sarcasm)

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Glass, if all it took was a presidential request, then why was it sent to Congress in the first place?

Second, if (for whatever reason) it had to be sent to Congress, why now is it ok for that reason to be ignored?

Third, if this is so innocuous, why did the DEMOCRATIC supermajority reject it?

Forth, have you read the bill's language?

Here's the link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-2853

It specifically contains language that prohibits a filibuster or other points of order against whatever this commission recommends.

Also, if the recommendations are passed in each house and then after commitee the senate doesn't like the new bill? Guess what? Tough beans:

TREATMENT OF COMPANION MEASURES IN THE SENATE- If following passage of the Task Force bill in the Senate, the Senate then receives the Task Force bill from the House of Representatives, the House-passed Task Force bill shall not be debatable. The vote on passage of the Task Force bill in the Senate shall be considered to be the vote on passage of the Task Force bill received from the House of Representatives.

And for funding?

From the amounts appropriated or made available and remaining unobligated under division A (other than under title X of division A) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), there is rescinded pro rata an aggregate amount equal to $9,000,000, which amount shall be made available without need for further appropriation to the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action to carry out the purposes of the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, and which shall remain available through fiscal year 2011. Not later than 14 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall administer the rescission and make available such amount to the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.

And that's just for starters, read the language of this pile. No wonder the DEMOCRATS voted against it.

dude, i already answered that.

i specifically said:

quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
LOL, you are complaining about this?

Ok, why did the Senate vote it down?

because fast tracking bills avoids the cloture vote (the 60 vote majority needed to end debate)

so, by creating the commission anyway? Obama is creating a task force to make recomendations to congress to increase FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, but he cannot force them to be fast tracked. Only a vote by the Senate to suspend the rules can avoid the cloture vote...

i beleive the president can require that Congress remain in emergency session until they vote on abill one way or another, but that is a pretty far-fetched notion except in real emergencies.

Obama is doing the right thing by being adversarial to Congress, the system was designed to be adversarial, it's part of th echaecks and valances principles.

cloture is the fillibuster vote.

furthermore, as you already stated? the bill was introduced by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and chief co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009 with Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) not "sent down" by the white house or anybody else. it came from the Senate itself.

Any President has the right to enact their own committees under executive order. Obama CANNOT change the rules of the Senate tho. Since Obama is an actual Constitutional Law Professor? I am sure he knows this.

there is no longer a Dem. supermajority, and even if there were? they would vote down rule changes like this because they can.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, so let me make sure I'm clear...

Obama wants to bypass current Congressional process. (strike one)

So, he supports a 'bipartisan' bill that will form a commission that will 'recommend' changes. These 'recommendations' will have the status of a bill that will only need a simple majority to pass and for which there is no point in reconsilitation as within the bill there is a provision that means you can't vote on it again.

The senate, understandably, doesn't think that's a good idea (as it sets a bad precedent for future congress') and chooses to vote against that bill.

The President, instead of re-tooling the bill or convincing his fellow Dems that they need to pass it anyway, chooses to threaten to bypass them completely. (strike two)

So, other than actually making good on his threat, what has he done here that doesn't merit my ire?

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
there is no longer a Dem. supermajority, and even if there were? they would vote down rule changes like this because they can.


I could be wrong, Glass, but I don't think Brown has been seated. The Dems still held the super majority as of the day this bill was voted on.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
on this subject Bush was strike one not obama

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3819 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Ok, so let me make sure I'm clear...

Obama wants to bypass current Congressional process. (strike one)

So, he supports a 'bipartisan' bill that will form a commission that will 'recommend' changes. These 'recommendations' will have the status of a bill that will only need a simple majority to pass and for which there is no point in reconsilitation as within the bill there is a provision that means you can't vote on it again.

The senate, understandably, doesn't think that's a good idea (as it sets a bad precedent for future congress') and chooses to vote against that bill.

The President, instead of re-tooling the bill or convincing his fellow Dems that they need to pass it anyway, chooses to threaten to bypass them completely. (strike two)

So, other than actually making good on his threat, what has he done here that doesn't merit my ire?

you are wrong all along the line.

first off? the bill was written by the Senators listed at the site you posted,

Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. GREGG, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. BAYH, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. LEMIEUX, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BENNET, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. BROWNBACK, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. CORKER, Mr. WARNER, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. BOND, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. JOHANNS, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget

not by Obama.

second off? Obama said he would create a committee, not change Senate rules, as i have clearly stated, he cannot do that, the SENATE has to do it, and they had a BIPARTIASN group that proposed they do so. The vote was a simple majority and would have passed if not for the 60 vote rule

The 60 vote rule is simply designed to allow fillibusters without actually having to DO them.


Cloture
History

A similar procedure was adopted in the United States of America in response to the actions of isolationist senators who attempted to talk out, or filibuster, a bill to arm U.S. merchant ships. President Woodrow Wilson urged the Senate to change its rules to thwart what he called a "little group of willful men", to which the Senate responded by introducing cloture in the form of Rule 22 on March 8, 1917.[1] Cloture was invoked for the first time on November 15, 1919,[2] during the 66th Congress, to end filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.


The cloture rule originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof.[4][5] For example, if all 100 Senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some Senators were absent and only 80 Senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor.[6] However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by Senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.

In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those Senators "present and voting" to those Senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every Senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. (For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 Senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would only take 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass.) [6]

The three-fifths version of the cloture rule does not apply to motions to end filibusters relating to Senate Rule changes. In order to invoke cloture to end debate over changing the Senate Rules, the original version of the rule (two-thirds of those Senators "present and voting") still applies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

you'll note that supermajority is actually 2/3 not 3/5ths and it is what is required to ratify a treaty (any treaty) that the President negotiates...
so when people said Obama was going to sign the Copenhagen treaty and sell US all into socialism? they were dead wrong about that too..

what Obama can do is write an executive order

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the U.S. government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.[9] Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.

now you want to get into some real twisting of laws in Executive orders?

read this magnificent POS:

TEXT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

July 17, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.


--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T e x
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for T e x     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SF,

Seems like we've had this conversation before, but you mainly seem angry to me.

As I recall, you said it's because "everybody" (or the libs) worship Obama...or something to that effect.

Well, clearly, "everybody" does not. Look at the polls.

And I didn't, even then...

But you simply gripe, gripe, gripe.

When I was trained, editorial writers were schooled not to merely point out problems but also to offer alternate suggestions. In other words, don't harp unless you have another idea...

Remember: the "mind" is the great cataloguer, ie, if you ask yourself, "What's wrong with this picture?" your mind will immediately seek to list and assign priorities. On the other hand, if you ask yourself, for instance, "How can I make this better?" your mind immediately begins sorting a different list.

Your mind is only a tool--control it, rather than vice versa.

--------------------
Nashoba Holba Chepulechi
Adventures in microcapitalism...

Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tex, I am angry over this one. I don't deny it.

You're absolutely right, I've never been a fan of Obama or his current direction in politics. However, up to now, he's played the game within the rules that have been established over 200 years of the Republic. I didn't like it that they could pass pretty much whatever they wanted, but they did it according to how the people voted. People voted the Dems into a filibuster proof majority in both houses so we deserved what we got.

That's because the Constitution is built to let the people hang themselves if they want to. Like it or not...I still hold that the Majority should rule. I hold to that even as I sit in the political minority.

But this is not game as usual. If Obama truly intends to try and force a procedural change that will effectively eliminate the constitutional checks and balances that exist for good reason to slow change to the pace where debate and reason outweigh passions; then I can't sit quietly by and say nothing as we lose what little representative voice we still have.

If I have misunderstood the gravity of what he said, then I ask someone to show me another way to look at it that doesn't involve him telling the Senate that their voice doesn't matter.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glass, I hope you will forgive my blunt honesty for a moment...

I am sick of every liberal, (not calling you one, you just happen to be the one following suit), that justifies Obama's questionable (if not unconstitutional) behavior with the misdeeds of past presidents. I don't argue the facts the Bush crossed too many lines by any definition. He did many things that I don't agree with and as I've stated before with the Patriot Act, things which I feel were unconstitutional.

BUT...

To continue to use them as a means of mitigating Obama's or other future Presidents' misdeeds only makes it less and less offensive when they cross the lines the Constitution has set to limit their power over us.

In short I ask this question: Why do (some) people find the need to use examples of bad behavior to justify current bad behavior? Either you agree with what Obama is doing or you don't. Comparing it to find a degree of 'lesser evil' doesn't make the lesser evil good.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T e x
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for T e x     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're upset. I get that.

But you miss my point.

As my ol' pappy used to say, "Don't join the wrecking crew--get on the construction crew."

My challenge to you is...this:

for 30 days, and do it every day, write down a constructive thought at the end of the day.

Not to say you won't have angry thoughts during the day (almost everybody does, especially in this economy), but each "evening" (no matter your actual work/sleep shift), come up with one solution to a problem, no matter what it is.

Not asking you to post it...simply go through the exercise.

I am sincere.

--------------------
Nashoba Holba Chepulechi
Adventures in microcapitalism...

Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Glass, I hope you will forgive my blunt honesty for a moment...

I am sick of every liberal, (not calling you one, you just happen to be the one following suit), that justifies Obama's questionable (if not unconstitutional) behavior with the misdeeds of past presidents. I don't argue the facts the Bush crossed too many lines by any definition. He did many things that I don't agree with and as I've stated before with the Patriot Act, things which I feel were unconstitutional.

BUT...

To continue to use them as a means of mitigating Obama's or other future Presidents' misdeeds only makes it less and less offensive when they cross the lines the Constitution has set to limit their power over us.

In short I ask this question: Why do (some) people find the need to use examples of bad behavior to justify current bad behavior? Either you agree with what Obama is doing or you don't. Comparing it to find a degree of 'lesser evil' doesn't make the lesser evil good.

i will try to be patient with you on this SF.

You have decided that Obama is doing something unconstitutional, yet you have provided not a shred of evidence that he is.

I will repeat that in no way can Obama , by Executive Order, rescind the rules of the Senate Procedures Unless the Senate AGREES to it.

get it?
i am saying that you are not correct in your ASSUMPTIONS. I am not defending Obama, cuz he hasn't done what you say he was going to do, and he cannot.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T e x
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for T e x     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Glass, I hope you will forgive my blunt honesty for a moment...

I am sick of every liberal, (not calling you one, you just happen to be the one following suit), that justifies Obama's questionable (if not unconstitutional) behavior with the misdeeds of past presidents. I don't argue the facts the Bush crossed too many lines by any definition. He did many things that I don't agree with and as I've stated before with the Patriot Act, things which I feel were unconstitutional.

BUT...

To continue to use them as a means of mitigating Obama's or other future Presidents' misdeeds only makes it less and less offensive when they cross the lines the Constitution has set to limit their power over us.

In short I ask this question: Why do (some) people find the need to use examples of bad behavior to justify current bad behavior? Either you agree with what Obama is doing or you don't. Comparing it to find a degree of 'lesser evil' doesn't make the lesser evil good.

See what I mean?

You're just *****, ***** *****...

me? I just joined these guys: http://www.arcsa.org/

--------------------
Nashoba Holba Chepulechi
Adventures in microcapitalism...

Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think all that long winded post was is to say that two wrongs don't make a right

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3819 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wallymac
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for wallymac     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If I have misunderstood the gravity of what he said, then I ask someone to show me another way to look at it that doesn't involve him telling the Senate that their voice doesn't matter."

There is a difference between the Executive Order that Obama is issuing and the Bill the Senate proposed and was voted down.

The difference is that Obama is not making law, he is only creating a bipartisian commission to deal with the debt. It is advisory and anything they come up with would then be forwarded to the senate to be discussed and voted upon. It doesn't deal with how the voting happens. IE: Super Majority vote required. The Senate bill included the elimination of the Super Majority requirement.

All Obama is doing is creating an advisory panel. They have no power to enact legislation. This is where I believe you have misunderstood what the Executive Order accomplishes. It is not over riding congress, He is not enacting the full bill that was voted upon. He is simply taking the portion of the bill that creates the commission. The commission is only ADVISORY.

Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
so it is much ado about nothing?

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
isnt that my point?

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wallymac
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for wallymac     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes that is your point Jordan.

Yet, It really seemed that SF needed it broken down to exact basics in order to understand that the Executive Order wasn't overriding the Senate bill.

Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
..but you guys put it much more succinctly and eloquently than I... thank you

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2019 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share