Yes, the Republican Party is talking about another government shutdown (since it worked so well that last time...), and yes, even though House Republicans prompted the first shutdown and the GOP is talking about it being a possibility yet again, they claim, like the first go-round, it will be President Obama's fault.
Let's review the first shutdown, shall we?
Step 1: President Obama got elected as President of the United States
Step 2: The Affordable Care Act got passed by both the House and the Senate
Step 3: The president signed the bill
Step 4: The bill gradually got implemented
Step 5: The Supreme Court ruled that the bill was Constitutional
Step 6: House Republicans threatened a government shutdown if the Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed
Step 7: The Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed
Step 8: The government shutdown began
Yes, through a democratic process, a president was elected, a bill passed, was signed, got implemented, and even survived the conservative Supreme Court justices in being ruled as Constitutional, yet it was President Obama's fault for the government shutdown because the bill didn't get repealed as Republicans had insisted. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...
So, what's the story this time? Sunday on Meet the Press, Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal attempted to explain the potential second government shutdown scenario and why it would be President Obama's fault yet again when he engaged in the following back-and-forth with Chuck Todd:
Chuck Todd: "Very quickly on immigration. If the president goes through with his executive action, do you think Republicans and Capitol Hill ought to use even the power of shutting down the government to stop him from doing it?"
Bobby Jindal: "Two things. I don't think the president should shut down the government to try to break the Constitution. The reality is this. I do think the --"
Todd: "You think the president would be shutting down the government?"
Jindal: "Oh, absolutely"
Todd: "So you do want Republicans to fight him on this to the point that it could shut down the government?"
Jindal: "Absolute -- I don't think the president should shut down the government."
Todd: "But you're twisting my question."
Jindal: "But wait, wait."
Todd: "That means you want that kind of showdown?"
Jindal: "Let's step back and understand what we're talking about. So the president said, 'I want to break the law.' He purposely said I'm going to wait till after the election, because I know it's not going to be popular to grant amnesty to millions of folks here that are here illegally. We had an election. He said his policies were on the ballot.
He lost in red states, purple states, blue states. The American people overwhelmingly rejected and rejected his policies. Now he's saying, 'I'm still going to break the law.' Talk about arrogance. The president used to say, 'Elections have consequences.' We're talking about how the Congress force the president to follow the law?
I would expect even Democrats who may agree with him on substance, to say the right way to do this is to follow the Constitution, follow the law. No, we shouldn't shut down the government, but absolutely Republicans should do everything they can to force the president to follow the law. Let's secure the border. No, the president shouldn't shut down the government so he can break the law."
Oh, Bobby, Bobby, Bobby... Governor Jindal is wrong on so many different levels, my head is about to implode.
First off, only 36.4% of registered voters voted in the midterms this year - that's the lowest turnout since 1942! So, even if 60% of these voters voted Republican, that would mean that just 21.8% of eligible voters in this country voted to give Republicans added power in both the federal and state governments. So, according to Bobby Jindal, 21.8% is greater than 78.2%.
Secondly, President Obama never said he was going to break the law, and according to conservative scholars and Supreme Court justices, his pending executive order(s) with regard to immigration isn't (aren't) illegal.
During their annual Federalist Society national convention at the Mayflower Hotel, conservative Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies at Duke Law School, Christopher Schroeder, had this to say about the president's pending actions on immigration:
"I think the roots of prosecutorial discretion are extremely deep. The practice is long and robust. The case is robust. Let me put it this way: Suppose some president came to me and asked me in the office of legal counsel, 'Is it okay for me to go ahead and defer the deportation proceedings of childhood arrival?' Under the present state of the law, I think that would be an easy opinion to write. Yes."
Schroeder added:
"I don't know where in the Constitution there is a rule that if the president's enactments affects too many people, he's violating the Constitution. There is a difference between executing the law and making the law. But in the world in which we operate, that distinction is a lot more probelmatic than you would think. If the Congress has enacted a statute that grants discretionary authority for the administrative agency or the president to fill in the gaps, to write the regulations that actually make the statute operative, those regulations to all intents and purposes make the law.
I agree this can make us very uncomfortable. I just don't see the argument for unconstitutionality at this juncture."
Third, from the start of President Obama's first term, Republicans have been crying out that he's been breaking the law and shredding the Constitution. This has typically been in response to the president making an executive order. However, President Obama has averaged fewer executive orders per year (33.57) than every president since Grover Cleveland, whom was president from 1893 to 1897 (and averaged 28.25 executive orders per year). Ronald Reagan, whom is often times hailed by Republicans as the greatest president in U.S. history, averaged approximately fourteen more executive orders per year than President Obama (47.63 in an average year).
President Obama's 193 executive orders
The GOP's reaction: "He's breaking the law and shredding the Constitution!"
President Reagan's 381 executive orders
The GOP's reaction: "He's the greatest president ever!"
So, there goes Governor Jindal's election argument and his breaking the law argument. What's left? Oh yes, his timing and logic argument...
So, let me get this straight, Governor Jindal, another government shutdown will be President Obama's fault for making an executive order prior to the shutdown? Is that correct? Governor Jindal made it sound like the president would shut down the government in order to make the executive order. No, he'd make the executive order, which would then somehow shut down the government. Sure, the Louisiana Governor is likely saying that the president's executive order will anger the Republican Party so much, it will lead to a government shutdown, and since the president made the executive order unlawfully, the shutdown will be his fault. The problem with that logic is the fact his executive order won't be illegal, so then what would actually prompt the government shutdown, since the president's actions came before it and weren't illegal? The Republican Party's anger. In other words, yet again, the shutdown would be the fault of the Republican Party.
So, congratulations, Governor Jindal! Your argument failed by the numbers, by the rule of law, and by logic! That's a triple whammy and is quite difficult to accomplish! Congrats yet again!
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/gov-bobby-jindal-tries-pin-any-potential
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/federalist-society-obama-immigration_n_6182350.html
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Let's review the first shutdown, shall we?
Step 1: President Obama got elected as President of the United States
Step 2: The Affordable Care Act got passed by both the House and the Senate
Step 3: The president signed the bill
Step 4: The bill gradually got implemented
Step 5: The Supreme Court ruled that the bill was Constitutional
Step 6: House Republicans threatened a government shutdown if the Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed
Step 7: The Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed
Step 8: The government shutdown began
Yes, through a democratic process, a president was elected, a bill passed, was signed, got implemented, and even survived the conservative Supreme Court justices in being ruled as Constitutional, yet it was President Obama's fault for the government shutdown because the bill didn't get repealed as Republicans had insisted. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...
So, what's the story this time? Sunday on Meet the Press, Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal attempted to explain the potential second government shutdown scenario and why it would be President Obama's fault yet again when he engaged in the following back-and-forth with Chuck Todd:
Chuck Todd: "Very quickly on immigration. If the president goes through with his executive action, do you think Republicans and Capitol Hill ought to use even the power of shutting down the government to stop him from doing it?"
Bobby Jindal: "Two things. I don't think the president should shut down the government to try to break the Constitution. The reality is this. I do think the --"
Todd: "You think the president would be shutting down the government?"
Jindal: "Oh, absolutely"
Todd: "So you do want Republicans to fight him on this to the point that it could shut down the government?"
Jindal: "Absolute -- I don't think the president should shut down the government."
Todd: "But you're twisting my question."
Jindal: "But wait, wait."
Todd: "That means you want that kind of showdown?"
Jindal: "Let's step back and understand what we're talking about. So the president said, 'I want to break the law.' He purposely said I'm going to wait till after the election, because I know it's not going to be popular to grant amnesty to millions of folks here that are here illegally. We had an election. He said his policies were on the ballot.
He lost in red states, purple states, blue states. The American people overwhelmingly rejected and rejected his policies. Now he's saying, 'I'm still going to break the law.' Talk about arrogance. The president used to say, 'Elections have consequences.' We're talking about how the Congress force the president to follow the law?
I would expect even Democrats who may agree with him on substance, to say the right way to do this is to follow the Constitution, follow the law. No, we shouldn't shut down the government, but absolutely Republicans should do everything they can to force the president to follow the law. Let's secure the border. No, the president shouldn't shut down the government so he can break the law."
Oh, Bobby, Bobby, Bobby... Governor Jindal is wrong on so many different levels, my head is about to implode.
First off, only 36.4% of registered voters voted in the midterms this year - that's the lowest turnout since 1942! So, even if 60% of these voters voted Republican, that would mean that just 21.8% of eligible voters in this country voted to give Republicans added power in both the federal and state governments. So, according to Bobby Jindal, 21.8% is greater than 78.2%.
Secondly, President Obama never said he was going to break the law, and according to conservative scholars and Supreme Court justices, his pending executive order(s) with regard to immigration isn't (aren't) illegal.
During their annual Federalist Society national convention at the Mayflower Hotel, conservative Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies at Duke Law School, Christopher Schroeder, had this to say about the president's pending actions on immigration:
"I think the roots of prosecutorial discretion are extremely deep. The practice is long and robust. The case is robust. Let me put it this way: Suppose some president came to me and asked me in the office of legal counsel, 'Is it okay for me to go ahead and defer the deportation proceedings of childhood arrival?' Under the present state of the law, I think that would be an easy opinion to write. Yes."
Schroeder added:
"I don't know where in the Constitution there is a rule that if the president's enactments affects too many people, he's violating the Constitution. There is a difference between executing the law and making the law. But in the world in which we operate, that distinction is a lot more probelmatic than you would think. If the Congress has enacted a statute that grants discretionary authority for the administrative agency or the president to fill in the gaps, to write the regulations that actually make the statute operative, those regulations to all intents and purposes make the law.
I agree this can make us very uncomfortable. I just don't see the argument for unconstitutionality at this juncture."
Third, from the start of President Obama's first term, Republicans have been crying out that he's been breaking the law and shredding the Constitution. This has typically been in response to the president making an executive order. However, President Obama has averaged fewer executive orders per year (33.57) than every president since Grover Cleveland, whom was president from 1893 to 1897 (and averaged 28.25 executive orders per year). Ronald Reagan, whom is often times hailed by Republicans as the greatest president in U.S. history, averaged approximately fourteen more executive orders per year than President Obama (47.63 in an average year).
President Obama's 193 executive orders
The GOP's reaction: "He's breaking the law and shredding the Constitution!"
President Reagan's 381 executive orders
The GOP's reaction: "He's the greatest president ever!"
So, there goes Governor Jindal's election argument and his breaking the law argument. What's left? Oh yes, his timing and logic argument...
So, let me get this straight, Governor Jindal, another government shutdown will be President Obama's fault for making an executive order prior to the shutdown? Is that correct? Governor Jindal made it sound like the president would shut down the government in order to make the executive order. No, he'd make the executive order, which would then somehow shut down the government. Sure, the Louisiana Governor is likely saying that the president's executive order will anger the Republican Party so much, it will lead to a government shutdown, and since the president made the executive order unlawfully, the shutdown will be his fault. The problem with that logic is the fact his executive order won't be illegal, so then what would actually prompt the government shutdown, since the president's actions came before it and weren't illegal? The Republican Party's anger. In other words, yet again, the shutdown would be the fault of the Republican Party.
So, congratulations, Governor Jindal! Your argument failed by the numbers, by the rule of law, and by logic! That's a triple whammy and is quite difficult to accomplish! Congrats yet again!
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/gov-bobby-jindal-tries-pin-any-potential
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/federalist-society-obama-immigration_n_6182350.html
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Comments
Post a Comment