Author Topic: Political Processes - Can we talk? (Read 137452 times)

Frybabe · « **Reply #400 on:** February 02, 2016, 04:40:22 PM »

I guess I just answered my question. Freehold was nominated for a Prometheus Award back in 2005. The award is sponsored by The Libertarian Futurist Society. I was unaware of this group before today.

marjifay · « **Reply #401 on:** February 05, 2016, 03:27:10 PM »

I missed the democratic debate last night, so I was reading a transcript of it on the internet. Really depressing. Not their debate exactly. But because I could only understand about half of what they were talking about, and I bet a large portion of the U.S. voters are just like me.

They mentioned Goldman Sachs' fraud. I have no idea whether they committed fraud.

Clinton also talked about the Dodd Frank saying it is just what we need. What the heck is Dodd Frank?

Bernie Sanders wants to restore Glass Steagall. (Say what??)

Bernie also made a statement that the Wall Street business model is a fraud. Oh yeah?

They also discussed a big problem with wealthy investors using the earned interest loophole.

I think most people don't understand much of this and vote simply for the person whose personality they prefer. Or they listen to people they respect tell them who to vote for.

I guess the only thing we can do is depend on experts to tell us if
something is wrong or right, but I wish I could understand more. I'm afraid my vote will be based simply on who I like best Sadly.

Marj

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #402 on:** February 05, 2016, 03:42:32 PM »

No Marj - please - do not depend on others to tell you from their viewpoint what is going on - those days have long since past since we have now at our fingertips the web - Those issues you do not know about or had only heard about in the speech just look them up -

The issues you named are all the current issues that are either possible cures or concerns for all of us. If we do not know something that obviously many do know about, it is simply a lack of knowledge - however, if we choose to continue accepting this lack of knowledge as our way of life then we really are what is called ignorant - please you are too smart to be ignorant - just look up on the internet the words that are new to you and are issues most kids learn about in High School and Collage these days.

Even I remember in 8th grade having to learn about the Banking Act of 1933 - no I do not remember all the provisions however, two provisions are called Glass Steagall named after two congressmen that recently after the banking crisis Congress wants to repeal. These provisions kept aspects of banking and investing separate and was a successful cure after the crash of '29.

marjifay · « **Reply #403 on:** February 05, 2016, 08:13:38 PM »

Thanks, Barb, for your encouragement on voting and on researching things we think we ought to know. You are so right..

Yes, we are very fortunate to have the internet today to refer to. Actually, after I wrote that message, I looked up Goldman Sachs on the internet and read an article there from Forbes Magazine which recommended reading a book entitled WHY I LEFT GOLDMAN SACHS by Greg Smith.
The author, Greg Smith, is an economist (oh how I hated that subject in college) but I think I therefore should learn something from his book.

I don't remember learning about the Banking Act of 1933, but when you mentioned it I remembered reading someone's opinion that we should keep ordinary banking and investment banking separate. I'll read more about that, and about Glass Seagall.

And, no, I won't let someone tell me how to vote. I like to form my own opinions, but I'll look at alternate opinions as a help.

Thanks again,
Marj

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #404 on:** February 06, 2016, 12:27:22 AM »

Great - and it sounds like you are on to a good book - need to look into it - and Marj you may have forgotten or we were in school at different times - I started grade school in 39 so it would have been in the 40s and there were all those dates we had to know - I bet you did too and just forgot. There was the The Sherman Act of 1890 then the Clayton Act in 1914 that prevented companies from stopping Unions, the Banking Act 1933 and the Maloney Act 1938 and the Federal Credit Union Act 1934 and the Wagner Act 1935, the Labor act that stopped child labor in 1938 and Trade Unions Act 1939.

Golly those dates were drilled into us almost like having to memorize the multiplication tables. Which to this day I have trouble with the 7 times table. I never could get 7 times 8 or 7 times 9 and the same for the 8 times table could not remember 8 times 7 or 8 times 9 and of course same with the 9 times table - to this day I have to stop and figure it out.

Not sure if I know what all those acts did and for sure never understood the provisions when I was a kid but we sure knew their names and dates and what the act addressed that affected us.

marjifay · « **Reply #405 on:** February 06, 2016, 11:10:11 AM »

Good heavens, Barb, you have a terrific memory! Your teacher must have either drilled or scared the heck out of you. My problem is spelling. I had to check to see if terrific had one or two r's.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if we'd had calculators when we went to school? I remember taking bookkeeping and finance in college and having to do all those calculations in my head.

Marj

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #406 on:** February 06, 2016, 12:30:58 PM »

Haha yes we used our head for so many tasks - from note taking to math - the thing that I remember most was the fun we had if a couple of us were at the grocery store at the same time and the grocer was adding up the bill by writing on the outside of the paper sack in a column the price for each item - with the pencil always stuck behind his ear he drew his line and added - we kids would race to add it up not only trying to beat the grocer but each other with smiles all around if any of the kids won because the grocer would look up with his broad grin. The simple things that were fun -

I notice the gal who is helping all the Syrian immigrant kids who moved into our neighborhood - they are in middle school and must attend regular classes but when they arrive do not know a word of English. The whole neighborhood has been helping them in all sorts of ways and what is astonishing the women who is coordinating and bringing in volunteers to help these kids is Jewish and she has all the kids that are working towards their Bar Mitzvah doing their obligatory project by helping with some aspect of the needs of these folks -

Anyhow all that aside one of the tricks she is using to help these kids is having them jump rope counting by 2s and 5s and 10s - those were the things we did when we were kids and today's kids do not even jump rope. We had all sorts of sing song games with rope and with a bouncing ball that we put our leg over the ball on a bounce - that was how we learned the states and the presidents and even poems - kids do not memorize poems but we did. Looking at the state of education and what kids know I am thinking we may have had a better education that affected our ability to use our head because where kids are great at using technology their knowledge of history, civics and literature is woeful.

mogamom · « **Reply #407 on:** February 11, 2016, 08:51:03 AM »

I'm so glad Sanders is in the presidential race; I think I finally get what he's talking about regarding the process being 'rigged' and why he's drawing so much of the young vote. I couldn't believe that, after all his effort in trouncing Clinton in New Hampshire she still walked away with as many delegates as he got there. Because she went in earlier and secured 9 super delegates (360 across the country) and walks away unscathed, though the good people of the state clearly do not want her. The DNC and the big money people will have their way it seems.

And Iowa still will not release actual numbers. Why would anyone vote if their vote doesn't matter anyway? If a handful of people at the top of the ladder dictate what's good for the rest of us? And when - and how - did the Democratic Party not only stop caring about the 'little people' and actually, blatantly scold and attack them?

The only way out of that is to drastically reduce the size (and power) of the federal government; term limits, some kind of flat tax, HSA's, state races financed solely by donations raised in that state, no corporate or union monies, and no donations from agencies receiving public funds! That should begin to rein it in. And how about a line-item veto and constitutional amendment for a balanced budget?

jane · « **Reply #408 on:** February 11, 2016, 10:55:50 AM »

Mogamom....re. "If a handful of people at the top of the ladder dictate what's good for the rest of us? "
I think that's happening in both parties, and has been happening for years. It's more obvious this year and things aren't going as the "top of the ladder", to use your expression, ever dreamed would happen. And maybe that's a good thing. One can hope that the career politicians, and that seems to be most of Congress, will finally get a message. The Eric Cantor defeat should have awakened them but apparently didn't.

I'm an Iowan and the whole caucus thing, for me, is ridiculous. A few thousand determine the results for all of us. I would much prefer a vote in a private voting booth and the ability to vote absentee or "early" as it's called in some places if I can't get to the polls on whatever date is decided upon.

But, that is just another example of the politicians not really wanting, in my mind, for everyone to have a voice. Bah humbug!

mogamom · « **Reply #409 on:** February 11, 2016, 02:31:55 PM »

How right you are! It does indeed occur in both parties! Sanders has just shined a light on it (as well as people who have pushed candidates who are not career politicians into the limelight) and it becomes more obvious every day. The whole process is so 'refined' that they know exactly which precincts in which states they need to cater to and win and can completely ignore the rest if they choose, or give them a passing nod. No wonder most Americans feel as though they are not being represented in Congress.

Oh..I also meant to suggest that anyone involved (directly or indirectly) in the legislative process - whether they be in congress, aides to judges or congress people, judges, in some position in the executive branch, etc. - should never be allowed to be a lobbyist. Some former congress persons actually have more political influence through lobbying than they had in congress.

mogamom · « **Reply #410 on:** February 12, 2016, 11:55:37 AM »

Just what we've been saying:

"The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

The decision, which may provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington.

“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

maryz · « **Reply #411 on:** February 13, 2016, 06:47:09 PM »

I just saw the news that Antonin Scalia has died. What an earthquake this causes!

jane · « **Reply #412 on:** February 13, 2016, 06:59:10 PM »

I had the same reaction, Mary!

Now the "fun" begins...and with the election, this will now become an added ring to what's become, to me, a circus.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #413 on:** February 13, 2016, 09:01:22 PM »

Bunch of legal heads on our neighborhood facebook page discussing how many cases now being considered would end up with a 4-4 vote which automatically means the decision by the lower court becomes the law. Several cases in favor of woman's choice. It throws back to the decision of the lower court the Obamacare issue as well as the immigration issue - a Mom deputing deportation - that is a lot of loss to the Republicans - presently Obama would most likely choose a moderate where as if a Dem wins in November they could be faced with someone far more liberal and if they block Obama's candidates than they look bad and that does not help a win among independents in November. This will be interesting to see it play out...

Frybabe · « **Reply #414 on:** February 15, 2016, 07:01:11 AM »

I found this interesting article about Pres. Clinton (Bill) and pension reform.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2016/president-clinton-chilean-model?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=8ce010c176-Cato_Weekly_Dispatch_January2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-8ce010c176-143082153&mc_cid=8ce010c176&mc_eid=2c8ff74b52

Gosh, you think that website address is long enough?

Anyway, I don't remember talk of pension reform back then, just Hillary's attempts to get health care reform going.

jane · « **Reply #415 on:** April 28, 2016, 11:58:34 AM »

John Boehner really let go on Ted Cruz in an interview at Stanford yesterday! WOW....

“Lucifer in the flesh,” Boehner said, according to the Stanford Daily. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a b---h in my life.”

See the whole thing here and in other news outlets, as well.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-boehner-ted-cruz-lucifer-flesh-article-1.2617390

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/28/john-boehner-just-called-ted-cruz-lucifer-in-the-flesh-he-does-this-sometimes/

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-28/boehner-would-vote-trump-but-not-cruz-in-fall-report-says

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #416 on:** April 28, 2016, 12:24:06 PM »

Boy do I agree with his assessment Jane - and yet in this state he is popular - I think it is the idea of independence that is not as valued or as valuable today - we are no long single handed taming anything - in towns we realize in order to get anything done it is through and with a group but that goes down hard among those who see their life as pulling up your boot straps and not belly aching if life throws you a punch. Plus rural areas are still the individual versus the land or cattle. It is that view on life that is disappearing and so the traditionalists and the super duper Christians have an easier relationship with each other which gives Cruz a following -

Personally the man scares me and I hate that he represents us in Congress - I think there has been so much change in the last 30 years with so many losses - and no clear path for most folks towards a better life so that the statement made by Obama in the early months of his first term are a good analogy - when people are scared they turn to their Bible and their guns.

Frankly I am fed up with the news controlling with their slant on happenings and not bringing important happenings to our attention so that you almost have to read foreign newspapers to have any idea of what is going on and most of all the circus the media has made of this political race that the candidates are more about saying whatever will get them free press -

I am worn out feeling like a two year old throwing a tantrum being dragged into voting for any of those who present themselves as the potential leader of this nation.

jane · « **Reply #417 on:** April 28, 2016, 12:39:48 PM »

The "what in the world is this circus" theme is what I hear from the people I know. Granted, these are "old" people and most, in this area, are very conservative. However, they are also baffled by this "circus" and unsure of what to do or think. I'm in that group, as well.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #418 on:** April 28, 2016, 12:46:54 PM »

Jane I am hearing it from all ages - I must say though most of the young that I hear from hardly watch or read traditional news sources - they seem to have their own underground news feed - the "circus" was an attention grabber for awhile - I think we were more aghast at what we were hearing and seeing but now it is beyond that - it feels like an assault on everything we stood for as a nation - I just do not know - to have to put on this kind of shocking show for attention reminds me of these wild life shows we see of prairie birds strutting with all sorts of body contortions for the attention of the opposite sex. And to figure out where in the food chain these birds fit is about what it is like trying to sort out these candidates. Lordy... I need my clothes closet again so I can scream without the neighbors calling 911...

marjifay · « **Reply #419 on:** May 16, 2016, 01:46:37 PM »

I guess by now most everyone has heard of the IMO silly law that was passed in one of the Carolinas (the northern one, I think) regarding the restrooms transgender people can use. I guess that, if not already required, soon anyone wanting to pee in a MacDonald's restroom will have to show a birth certificate to prove that the restroom they choose to enter is the one god intended them to use.

Marj

nlhome · « **Reply #420 on:** May 16, 2016, 05:20:14 PM »

Sometimes common sense flies out the window.

Frybabe · « **Reply #421 on:** May 16, 2016, 05:57:18 PM »

I sincerely hope that if they have stipulated that the transgender person carries paperwork that they are in the treatment process for those who haven't yet had the surgery. Those that have had surgery won't look much if at all any different than you and me and the birth certificate will be changed, on application to the post surgery result. Otherwise, we will have all kinds of pervs taking advantage.

My Ex is transgender. After two years of psychiatric treatment and evaluation. Part of the treatment was that she dress as the gender to which she wanted to be changed. She carried paperwork to the effect that she was under treatment, etc. At the conclusion of the treatment and surgery, she was able to get her birth certificate changed to female. When she relocated, her new gynecologist could only tell that she had presumably had a hysterectomy, not a sex change; the surgery was that good. End of problem with bathrooms.

nlhome · « **Reply #422 on:** May 20, 2016, 10:42:12 PM »

I don't understand why we would have any more "pervs" taking advantage of this than we have in the past. The biggest problems seems to be same sex issues, especially in men's rooms.

Frybabe · « **Reply #423 on:** May 21, 2016, 07:07:12 AM »

I was thinking about that last night, nlhome. I doubt there would be much more of a problem with pervs than there already are. All of my Ex's problems during transition and afterword were from people who already knew about the change, like co-workers, neighbors and friends who knew the before and after. Lots of fear, disgust, feelings of betrayal. Only one of my Ex's friends stuck by us during the transition and divorce. Strict company policy kept co-workers from causing a lot of trouble and they had someone who at company headquarters that had already undergone treatment to contact for help and counseling in work situations.

I dropped one good friend because instead of supporting me, she and her husband chose to criticize both of us and pull the religious card. I guess I wasn't supposed to try to understand and learn about the problem. I guess I was supposed to get really nasty and try and "take" everything when I went. I am not like that. I got two years of college paid for, a new car and half the price of the house without nastiness. Dad wasn't about to lose a daughter over it, but since Mom was so upset and embarrassed that he was able to convince her to finally make the move to Florida because of it.

Newest APA guidelines for therapy. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf

For those who are truly interested, there is a lot of information out there regarding not only psychological and hormonal treatment and surgery, but also extensive research in sexual differentiation stages during the growth of a fetus. This also encompasses such disorders as Turner's Syndrome where miscues during pregnancy cause chromosomal conditions that affect the physical growth of the baby as well as the associated developmental problems in mental capacity.

The Romans didn't have a problem with unisex bathrooms: http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=8&with_photo_id=5935732&order=date_desc&user=1105719

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #424 on:** May 21, 2016, 12:22:36 PM »

Neither do Concert goers or Construction workers.

nlhome · « **Reply #425 on:** May 22, 2016, 03:37:54 PM »

My piano teacher when I was young was the next door neighbor's college-aged daughter. She wasn't good with children and I learned a very regimented way to play, but she also introduced me to classical music and how to listen for different instruments - all things I would not have learned in my tiny rural school. A few years later when I was in high school, my mom told me that the neighbor girl was now a "he" and had changed her/his name. As far as I remember, that was all, just those facts. My mom would update me about him over the years, as he moved around, taught music and married. My parents stayed friends with the family, and if he came home, they visited. I never thought much about it then, it was done in such a matter-of-fact manner - now I look back in wonder at how accepting my parents were.

mogamom · « **Reply #426 on:** May 30, 2016, 02:46:32 PM »

As far as the Romans go with public toilets, think togas and stollas.

The problem isn't with single admittance unisex toilets. It's with gang johns and locker room showers.

bellamarie · « **Reply #427 on:** May 31, 2016, 03:43:10 PM »

I am not concerned about transgenders using individual bathroom stalls. My concern is the adolescents who are in jr. high, high school and college who will have to shower with someone with the opposite genitalia. Neither of my grandchildren who are in their early teens, one a boy and one a girl, want anything to do with having to share a locker room or shower after sports or gym class with someone with the opposite genitals. Young teens are already so very uncomfortable with their bodies and their own personal changes taking place, now this president is forcing them to deal with such a very confusing issue at such a young age. He really did not give this any thought whatsoever.

I wish this were JUST about bathroom stalls and adults, but it is not. It is clearly a violation of 99.7% non transgenders civil rights and privacy. The American Pediatric Assoc. has spoke out against this mandate stating the concerns of the pre teens and teens it will involve with locker rooms and showers. There are much more sensible ways to deal with this transgender issue but it seems our president rushed to judgement, forced the mandate and is digging his heels in and punishing schools refusing to abide by it. Clearly it will end up in the Supreme court which they will have to rule down the mandate. It is not up to the president to make or enforce a mandate, he has once again overstepped his position.

Frybabe · « **Reply #428 on:** June 01, 2016, 06:12:22 AM »

I agree with you, Bellamarie, on both counts. There will be trouble in the locker rooms and showers.

I fear that the POTUS has lowered the bar on the use of executive orders and has set a precedent that future presidents will be tempted to emulate or extend.

So much for democracy. It is being eaten away by presidents overstepping their authority, supreme court justices and lower court justices making law through judicial judgements, and a congress full of congressmen who are more interested in making it a life long occupation, giving themselves perks, and exempting themselves from things not allowed for the general public.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #429 on:** June 01, 2016, 11:36:55 AM »

I wonder if the easiest solution is simply rename the locker rooms and showers so they do not fall legally within the executive order - rather than all this gnashing for teeth - however, renaming can also be abused by those who are attempting to shame anyone who does not fit the neat physical profile of a male or female.

bellamarie · « **Reply #430 on:** June 01, 2016, 09:33:35 PM »

I think the only logical solution is to have a female, male, and gender neutral, bathroom, locker room and shower. How is a transgender going to feel any more uncomfortable going into the gender neutral bathroom, locker room or shower, than they would be standing next to someone with the opposite genital parts? It's not about shaming or being insensitive, it is allowing all civil rights and privacy to be met.

Frybabe, I could not have put it more eloquently as you stated about the out of bounds of president, courts, and congress. Everyone seems to forget their responsibilities and who actually "makes the law", who "enforces it", and who determines when it is not being accurately constitutional. Not to mention they all have forgotten they are "elected" by the people to serve the people, not their own personal agendas and ideologies. In the process they are trampling our Constitution and civil rights. I see them using the transgenders as a political chess piece, just as they use race, religion and creed. Nothing is sacred anymore.

nlhome · « **Reply #431 on:** June 04, 2016, 02:36:22 PM »

A brief scan of executive orders, numbers per president and subjects, over the years is illuminating. I suspect the objections to them are more related to whether a person approves of the order or not, rather than whether they exceed authority.

Frybabe · « **Reply #432 on:** June 05, 2016, 06:12:32 AM »

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order

bellamarie · « **Reply #433 on:** June 06, 2016, 01:40:20 AM »

I don't believe it is not about if you agree or disagree with a particular president's executive order that makes it exceed authority. It is if the president has single handedly taken it upon himself to bypass congress and make a mandate, or order that is out of his jurisdiction. It is not about how many presidents have done it, and how many they have done. Any president who does such acts for the soul purpose to further his own ideology and agenda, refusing to allow the legislative branch of our government to do their job, which is to "make the laws" only chips away at our Constitution and the democracy of our nation. We have the three branches of government to protect our Constitution, and to prevent a president from becoming a dictator.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-3-branches-of-government-executive-legislative-judicial.html

Frybabe · « **Reply #434 on:** June 06, 2016, 06:26:04 AM »

Well said Bellamarie.

nlhome · « **Reply #435 on:** June 06, 2016, 04:45:26 PM »

So all Presidents have made executive orders, from minor to major, often many more than our current president - which ones "exceed authority"?

FDR, for example, made a large number of executive orders, from creating the CCC camps to interning Japanese Americans in WWII. Each President, as far as I read, made minor orders such as making someone eligible for benefits to major orders.

One could argue that without executive orders changes and actions that were/are considered necessary would not be made. Congress moves exceedingly slow.

bellamarie · « **Reply #436 on:** June 08, 2016, 10:45:00 AM »

I think when it comes to the immediate, eminent safety of our country that is entirely different.

Like I said, we have three branches so no president can become a dictator. This president has boldly stated, "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone." meaning he plans to bypass congress when he feels like it or if they do not give him what he wants, or acts in the time he wants it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-will-use-my-pen-and-phone-to-take-on-congress/

It's interesting how he used this back in 2014 in his argument for giving the kids the best education, yet he passes a mandate now in 2016, that will penalize schools not giving them federal money who refuse to follow his mandate, which would hurt the education of the kids now.

"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine"

In his speech in February 1941 Churchill says calling on America to join the war "Here, then, we see the beginnings of a process of reparation and of the chastisement of wrong-doing which reminds us that though the mills of the gods grind slowly they grind exceedingly small."

Gottesmühlen mahlen langsam, mahlen aber trefflich klein;
Ob aus Langmut Er sich säumet, bringt mit Schärf' Er alles ein.

- by Friedrich von Logau (1604-1655), in Sinngedichte, (1653), III.ii.24.

Translated by H.W. Longfellow:

"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all."

(Cite: Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 3rd ed.)

I say, let the three branches to their jobs they are meant to do, in whatever time it takes them to do.

mogamom · « **Reply #437 on:** June 09, 2016, 01:49:41 PM »

Absolutely. Our government was designed so that no one person/group could control all. It was meant to go slow and do the work well. If all three branches operate as they were designed to (which includes not allowing the Supreme Court to make laws), the people are protected from fads, whims, and a push for power.

mogamom · « **Reply #438 on:** June 09, 2016, 07:44:56 PM »

Speaking of Conflict of Interest and over-stepping authority: the president just endorsed Clinton, a woman under investigation by the FBI which involves his Department of Justice. And the time-line?

met with Hillary Clinton this am
met in the oval office with Sanders this am
released a three-minute video endorsing Clinton this am
@2:25 pm met in a closed-door meeting in the oval office with Loretta Lynch

The FBI investigation has been designated a 'criminal investigation'; let's see how all this pans out. I can't imagine a President Nixon or Bush getting away with doing this, what appears to be an attempt to influence an on-going investigation. It really puts the president on the spot since he could be implicated as well? But, time will tell.

Oh...and I'm a bit rusty on history here - didn't Congress give FDR unusual powers during WWII, resulting in the executive orders? Perhaps not, but I thought so.

Frybabe · « **Reply #439 on:** June 10, 2016, 06:30:25 AM »

Yes, FDR was given extra authority to conduct war-time affairs. I believe the rationale was that going through congress for some things would hamper the US from acting quickly regarding wartime necessities.

From the Free Dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order After reading this, I wonder why no one (or have they) tried to pass legislation to restrict the use of Executive Orders. It appears that while the Constitution gives the president the use of Executive Powers it is not specific.

History lesson trivia. The Romans (during the Republic) had a system where, at times, extreme necessity required that a dictator be appointed for the duration of a crisis or war. They felt that reduced conflict (differences of opinion) between the two consuls and focused everyone on obeying only one consul's decisions until the crisis was over. Once the crisis was over, they reverted back to the two consul system. The Romans were paranoid about allowing any one person to have extensive powers; their consuls served only one year, and each one alternated being lead on a monthly basis. Consul's could be re-elected.

News:

Author Topic: Political Processes - Can we talk? (Read 137452 times)