US President and Congress: Conflicts and Controversies

Although the president of the United States is called in the world's media "the world's most powerful man", this is not something to happen in America. According to the constitution and the separation of the Legislative and the Executive branches, they are literally two separate bodies. The American form of government was founded on the key principle of checks and balances. By separating powers between the president and Congress, the founding fathers hoped that each would control and check the power of the other. However, there has always been a kind of conflict between these two US powers. This piece of writing seeks to find the main sources of these conflicts using historical cases of US president and Congress conflicts.

One of the most important conflicts between the US President and the Congress is when a war happened. If we think of the Korean War and go back to the historical reports and documents, we can easily get that the declaration of war on the North Korea was not permitted by the US Congress. According to the US Constitution the president can declare war on a country as Commander-in-Chief but before sending troops the Congress must approve it. In 1950, President Harry Truman saw communist North Korea's invasion of South Korea as a threat to the US but it was not a congressional vote that brought the U.S. into the Korean War. It was a United Nations resolution that condemned North Korea's invasion of South Korea. This is what President Truman used in his decision to send troops to Korea. In this case the Congress not only exercised its power to declare war, but also it did not vote for the president's decision to declare war on North Korea.

In another part of the American history, when Richard Nixon became the president of the United States he said that the North Vietnam was using neighboring Cambodia as a safe place for its troops. Then Nixon ordered an invasion of that country. In an April 30, 1970 TV speech, he said that the US had respected Cambodia's neutrality. That was a lie. The president had ordered secret bombings of that country for several months. Now he announced that sending in U.S. troops was necessary to win the war against North Vietnam. This time the Congress rebelled against the president's actions using its constitutional power. The congress had not been consulted about either the Cambodia bombings or the decision to send in troops. In December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance introducing troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisers to Cambodia. In June 1973, Congress set August 15, 1974, as the date for the end of all funding for combat activities in Southeast Asia. In April 1975 the last U.S. troops left Cambodia and Vietnam.

Another example of US Congress and president conflict could be the US president support for the Contras in Nicaragua. The Contras were the enemies of the Sandinista revolutionaries who had overthrown Anastasia Somoza, a brutal dictator in the Central American nation of Nicaragua. President Ronald Reagan started supplying weapons and training to the Contras. A disapproving Congress passed legislation barring this support in December 1982. The president said that interfered with his authority to conduct foreign affairs. Legislators argued that the president acted unconstitutionally if he involved the country in a war, even if the soldiers were not American.

President Bush announced in January 2007 that he was sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. He said that he knew Congress could vote against it, "but I've made my decision and we're going forward." The president has said repeatedly, that he is "the decider" on issues of war. While, according the US Constitution the president needs the Congress approval on issues of war. During a hearing on congressional war powers, Senator Spector, said that he would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the only decider. The decider is a shared responsibility.

There have been many other conflicts between the two branches of power in the United States, the president and the Congress, during the American history. But the main question that comes to mind is that why these kinds of conflicts have always existed during the American history? Usually the majority of the Congress is made up of the party opposed to one of the president. However, in cases which both the president and the Congress were from the same party, conflicts existed. Although it has some effects, we can conclude that the origin of these conflicts very much of the party affiliation.

Historically, Republican presidents have always had more success in dealing with a Democrat dominated Congress than a Democrat president with a Republican dominated Congress. Democrat presidents have had real problems with Democrat dominated Congress. Therefore a simple same-party majority between the president and Congress does not guarantee that the president will see his recommendations accepted. This would show that the ideologies held by American politicians are not simply linked to one party. Cross-party support for a certain issue can and does happen.

But what are the sources of these conflicts? I think several factors can cause conflict in US system of separated institutions sharing power. Among them are constitutional ambiguities, different constituencies, varying terms of office, divided party control of the different branches, and fluctuating support of a president or the Congress.

View article source

Preview to Obama's Jobs Program to Congress

Obama to Tell Congress How to Create Jobs: Expect a New Economic Paradigm.

The President is going to address a double session of Congress in a speech dedicated to "Create Jobs" - sound familiar. Besides the fact that these announcements have been done countless times before, in the case that this is different or any better, why is it 3 years late? Or why does it need a pompous setting? Simple, because when you lack content you dress it up with flourish.

However, not withstanding our past experience, we are expecting a historic lunching of new economic theories that will probably change the way the world applies their economic policies forever. Here is our anticipation of what to expect:

* Expect the application of "common sense" Obamanomics at its best, no better exemplified than by Jay Carney, influential PhD in Economics, masquerading as WH Press Spokesperson, which patiently explained to a compliant WH press corps how unemployment insurance "creates jobs" simply by the "common sense" deduction that "people who are unemployed and obviously aren't earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get" from unemployment insurance, and that, the economic genius concluded, "creates jobs". We believe that the WH is actually on to some breakthrough in job creation here.

So we suggest that Obama's team double or triple up on that theory and, voila, we can create millions of jobs by simply firing all workers in the Federal government and then give them an unemployment insurance payment that is double their past salaries. Or better still, give a tax credit for every employee that the private industry fires and then give them three times the size of their salary in unemployment insurance payment. What genius, Obamanomics has discovered that we can create lots of jobs just by paying people not to work.

The above alone could rush in an unprecedented era of economic growth and riches for everyone - well, not for everyone, just for those that are not working, which would be the majority, anyway.

** As if that is not enough, The President is bound to give us an added measure of one of his old favorites by suggesting that raising the minimum wage would create more jobs. It follows a perfectly logical path for PhD in economics which tells you that the more it costs a company to hire a worker the more workers it will want to hire. Well, maybe it doesn't sound too logical, but we have to trust these Ivory Tower eggheads, you know, like the "Progressive" Center for American Progress [redundancy mine] which has suggested just that.

*** But perhaps the jewel of Obamanomics will be reserved for last in a proposal to do away with all machinery and computer hardware and software in all work places. That is a perfectly sensible idea that emanates from the geniality, and perhaps the core of most Obamanomics, as explained recently by the President in referring to unemployment. He blamed unemployment on businesses becoming "more efficient with a lot fewer workers", as typified by ATM machines and Airport kiosk that take the place of tellers cashing your checks for recently printed money, or airline workers attending to your tickets and losing your baggage at the same time. We believe that Obamanomics is on to something even bigger here, for by simply forbidding, by executive order or regulation or both, to use any automated machines in auto manufacturing or any hardware manufacturing, in farming and agriculture, construction, etc... we can add millions of new workers to these industries doing everything by hand.

Nothing, of course, exemplifies better the outstanding genius of this theory that when Milton Friedman was traveling in China in the 1960's and "visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built he was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: 'You don't understand. This is a jobs program.' To which Milton replied: 'Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.' "

Obama's Jobs speech should prove just as revolutionary!!!

View article source

Don't Let Congress Erode Laws Protecting Women's Rights and the Disabled

This article discusses why your family should become very interested in what is happening in congress to women and the disabled. Women's rights and disabled people are in jeopardy to lose a lot of their hard gained advances. If families having children with learning disabilities don't get involved, they stand to lose the education benefits for their children. With Autism on the rise, we need everybody paying attention to the debate on entitlements. Congress is protecting the rich while taking from the most vulnerable. Congress is examining the laws of the United States to discern ways to cut the budget. The American with Disabilities Act will be one of the laws that if eroded will adversely affect women, disabled children and other handicapped people. The mentally retarded and autistic children are in the forefront of cuts. Special education is fully funded by the federal government. Also, SSI is not the same as Social Security. There is no trust fund.

From the late 50's to the 1970's, feminists and other activists fought for women's rights and The American Disabilities act.. By the middle 70's these activists made inroads and rejoiced when numerous laws were finally passed by congress. Now a much different congress is attempting to erode laws protecting women and the disabled. Some short sided legislators managed to control our house of representatives through the resources of the Tea Party.

Those determined to turn back the clock seem to gravitate to the Tea Party to use their resources and recognition. The Tea Parties' original intent was to cut government spending, not to change the laws protecting women's rights and the disabled. Not all of the laws being considered are financial in nature. What a shame. I remember reading a quote that indicated that throughout history, when women begin to gain status and power, no matter where they are in the world; they are systematically pushed back by men. Men then again hold the positions of power. The old saying that men should keep women barefoot and pregnant was how they kept power in the past. Hopefully, it will prove impossible to go back to that situation. We have gained so much because of technology and medicine. Women have more choice, but will it last? Without government laws and forcing the backing of those laws, women, handicapped and those with learning disabilities are vulnerable. Evan with the laws in place, many still don't have access to the basic protection of these laws.

A good example is the call for debate on eliminating some of the entitlements. Since most people aren't aware of the entitlements they use, these are the easiest to cut. Those families with disabled individuals need to unite and again fight to keep the rights many struggled so hard to gain. Advocates for seniors have already taken up the Mantra: "Don't cut our Social Security and don't mess with medicare", but these are only two of the entitlements, and social security uses a very different financial accounting than SSI and education entitlements.

We need women to be involved in the feminist fight because we are seeing our laws eroded, and some wanting to destroy our freedoms. The disabled are suffering through assaults on them, and their opportunities to education are coming up for cuts. Families of handicapped worked very hard since the early 50's to assure that mentally retarded had the right to an education, and safe and secure homes. The law that resulted was The Americans with Disabilities Act. This is the law that covers the rules for all education of learning disabilities, and the accessibility of disabled people to the same benefits the non handicapped enjoy. It includes education, SSI, and other entitlements.

I recently discovered this quote by President Kennedy that sums up what being a liberal means.

".... if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

It certainly applies today. We need to have a forward-looking congress, not one repeating the old lies.

that Social Security will disappear for our children and grandchildren is a fallacy often repeated since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president.That our country is going to go bankrupt, or that another great depression is imminent..That our government can't possibly take care of the most vulnerable.

Our country is exceptionally resilient, full of citizens with ideas and innovation. If they have the opportunity to thrive will develop what this country needs. To say that we have lost the American spirit is false. It is strong, and gets stronger when we have needs to fill.

I worked for 35 years with the mentally retarded and fought for women's rights and the laws governing them. None of us who worked on these laws are entirely satisfied with what congress actually passed, but they are the best we have. With such a diverse population, no one person is going to be satisfied with everything, but the laws we did manage to pass have served the disabled population well. To see the government systematically eroding the laws is unacceptable to me.

View article source

New Republican Lawmakers Forced to Declare Loyalties Before Joining Congress - Fox News

WASHINGTON -- The midterm election may be over, but the in-fighting that dominated debate about the differences between Tea Party conservatives and establishment Republicans flared again Sunday as incoming lawmakers arrived in Washington for orientation.

Republican lawmakers-elect began entering town Sunday morning for courses meant to ease their transition from private citizen to public official. They are expected to attend GOP-hosted classes at the Capitol Hill Club designed to go over issues like ethics, House rules, blackberry usage and the bell-ringing system to call House votes, among other mundane functions.

House Republican Leader John Boehner, the presumptive speaker of the next House, welcomed newly elected congressional members with a letter commending them for the initiative to meet ahead of the lame-duck session that will pull the current Congress back to town this week.

"Your class colleagues will be a great source of support, inspiration and friendship in the months ahead as the new majority gets to work on the priorities of the American people," Boehner wrote. "I look forward to the honor of serving with you in the 112th Congress as we begin a new drive for smaller, less costly, more accountable government in Washington. See you Sunday night." 

But in the midst of their arrival, the new class found itself smack in the middle of a series of hostile exchanges by sponsors of other overlapping events, and the incoming group of 60 Republicans is unexpectedly finding its loyalties questioned by other influential parties. 

The Tea Party Patriots, which has the backing of FreedomWorks, the Leadership Institute and other organizations that helped bankroll and campaign for up-and-coming Tea Party candidates, late last week accused GOP leadership and its sponsor, the conservative Claremont Institute, of holding the Capitol Hill Club function to indoctrinate new members into Washington's unhealthy habits. 

TPP then inflamed lawmakers by publishing personal information of the new class. That came about after the TPP, which states it wants to prevent its revolutionaries from being co-opted by establishment Washington, wrote its membership urging them to contact the newly elected members and complain that the Tea Partiers were being manhandled by Beltway insiders. 

"We need you to call & e-mail these incoming Congressmen & tell them you want them to attend YOUR Tea Party Patriots event," reads the e-mail notice to TPP members. "Or would you rather they attend an indoctrination organized by DC insiders and lobbyists, members of The Ruling Class?"

That move angered Rep.-elect Bill Flores, who beat Chet Edwards for the Texas House seat. Flores called the Tea Party Patriots "disruptive" and said he was going to the Capitol Hill Club because it was important to meet fellow freshmen.

"The TPP's tactics were inappropriate -- the posting of our private cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses along with the trashing of the Claremont Foundation's reputation were not professional actions and they were disruptive to our individual efforts to have effective transitions into our elected offices," he said.

But the action also apparently alarmed sponsors of a "Constitutional Congress," hosted by three current lawmakers, retiring Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona and Sens. Tim Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of  South Carolina. They reportedly had planned their event as part of the Tea Party Patriots event, but separated themselves after learning of the conflict. 

To avoid the mess, some new members said they would try to hit all three events. That started when a group of freshmen turned up at the Constitutional Congress to hear Shadegg, a member of the class of 1994, discuss the mistakes those GOP revolutionaries made.

Waves of freshmen, including Reps.-elect Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Tom Graves of Georgia, Billy Long of Missouri and Marlin Stutzman and Todd Young of Indiana, also heard from DeMint, who urged the group to be more than "rhetorical gadflies" and to put their principles into legislation.

"We've got overlapping events, we have got a lot of demands on our time. I'm going to try to be at as much of everything as I can," said Rep.-elect Bill Johnson, R-Ohio., one of the first new lawmakers to arrive in town.

Rep.-elect David Schweikert of Arizona added that none of the organizers need to worry about the new class going astray from its fundamentals because the freshmen are "firebreathers" who are just trying to divvy up their time to be most effective.

"On some evenings there are four or five activities all going on at once. And you're doing your best to choose what fits what you need to learn," he said.

Schweikert, who has offered to abide by term limits and said he doesn't plan on doing the "cocktail game," added that none of the freshmen came to Washington with any interest in making friends with lobbyists. 

"One of the fun things, and my wife keeps commenting on this, is how many new best friends we've had since Election Day," Schweikert said. 

Rep.-elect Tim Walberg, R-Mich., one of several past members who lost their seat and then won re-election this year, said he's not going to attend any of the gatherings because he's technically not a freshman. 

A Little Bit of This and a Little Bit of That

As if office politics weren't enough to unsettle the recently elected, they soon could potentially witness the Republican Party go through another upheaval as Republican National Committeeman Saul Anuzis tries to unseat Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Anuzis, who made the announcement on Friday, released an e-mail on Sunday saying his decision to run against Steele -- as he did unsuccessfully in 2009 -- isn't about "firing someone, it's about hiring a new chairman to run the party under very different circumstances."

"I believe now, more than ever, we need a 'nuts and bolts' kind of chairman who will make sure the trains run on time and can raise the money necessary" to implement the best get-out-the-vote programs nationwide.

While several Republicans have suggested Steele be put out to pasture for gaffes and questionable financial decisions, the chairman has said GOP turnover this election and his work on the campaign trail make him worthy of another two-year term.

View the original article here

Midterm Races Could Hold Key to White House, Congress in 2012 - Fox News

President Obama's name is not on the ballot Nov. 2, but his chance at a second term in the White House could be on the line. 

As the president and top Democratic surrogates like Bill Clinton criss-cross the country to campaign for their party's gubernatorial candidates, party operatives are looking ahead to what this year's race will mean for 2012. 

And so far, it's not looking good for Democrats. 

Several peculiarities in the 2010 landscape could have great bearing on the next election. For starters, Republicans are projected to pick up several seats in the 37 governors' races being held next Tuesday. That could give whoever is running as the GOP presidential nominee in 2012 a powerful surrogate at the helm of a number of key swing states. 

In addition, this year's governors' races coincide with the 2010 Census, the national head count that will be used as the basis for reshaping congressional districts nationwide. The governors, by virtue of their veto pen and other factors, have considerable sway over that process -- and if Republicans make the kind of gains forecasters predict, the party will be poised to redraw the congressional map to their advantage come 2012. This would help the party either build, or reinforce, a congressional majority two years from now, while having a more indirect impact on the presidential race. 

Finally, projections show that when the districts are redrawn, red states will likely end up gaining seats in Congress while blue states will lose them. For Obama, this means a more grueling and challenging climb to the 270 electors needed to secure reelection in 2012 -- the number of electors each state has is based on the number of its congressional seats, and if deep-red states like Texas grow, that's bad news for the sitting president. 

"The states that are going to gain congressional seats are the ones that John McCain won," said David Avella, executive director of Republican recruitment arm GOPAC. 

All these factors are on the minds of Republicans who, in some cases, are plotting a two-cycle path to Washington domination. The Republican Governors Association publicly claims that its races in 2010 are the key to a 2012 wave. 

"The RGA believes Republicans won't win back the U.S. Senate, House or presidency until first reclaiming a majority of governorships for the GOP," the group says on its website. 

Democratic governors provided Obama a big boost in the 2008 presidential election in several battleground states -- Democrats were at the helm of nearly every "purple" state Obama won, from Colorado to Virginia to Ohio to Iowa. 

But what if some of those seats change hands? Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland was an enthusiastic advocate for Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, but now he's fighting for his political life against GOP candidate John Kasich. Republican gubernatorial candidates are poised to take back Democratic seats in Obama-supporting Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan, among other states. The storied battleground of Florida is still a toss-up in the race between Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Alex Sink. 

Avella said the outcomes play heavily into the 2012 presidential race. 

"The governor controls the political machinery for his party," he said. He said Republican governors will be able to leverage fundraising networks in support of the GOP nominee as well as shape legislative agendas that could rally Republican voters in the next cycle. 

Plus, most of the new governors -- as well as the state legislatures -- will have sway over the redistricting process, one of the biggest prizes to come out of the Nov. 2 midterms. 

"That's why the governor's (seat) is so important at this particular time" said Jerry Shuster, political communication professor at the University of Pittsburgh. "It's a critical time for both parties and they know that." 

Governors can help shape congressional districts for the benefit of their party's incumbents and challengers; for Republicans, this would mean upping their chances at a congressional takeover in 2012 if they fall short next month. This process also can have an indirect effect on the presidential race. Avella noted that a boost in the number of Republican-friendly congressional districts could give more momentum to GOP candidates, and in turn rally more GOP operatives and money to turn out the vote for the presidential nominee. 

While Obama would not have to worry in most states about the shape of congressional districts -- presidential electors are divvied up based on the popular vote in each state -- the individual districts come into play in Maine and Nebraska. Those two states have a hybrid system where the votes in each congressional district factor into which presidential candidate wins their electors. 

More importantly, a study released at the end of September showed that blue states stand to lose about a half-dozen districts while red states stand to scoop up about that many as a result of the redistricting process. 

The analysis from Election Data Services projected that Texas, a GOP stronghold, would gain a whopping four congressional districts. New York, a Democratic powerhouse, would lose two, according to the data. 

Shuster said the impact of those shifts on the White House race depends on a host of factors. If the economy starts to turn around, it's a "limited" issue, he said. But if Republicans field a strong candidate and the economy stagnates for another two years, "then it has the possibility of having an impact on the outcome of the election."

View the original article here

Subscribe to RSS headline updates from:
Powered by FeedBurner