Saturday, November 3, 2012

When Following The Constitution How Much Executive Power Does The President Have Over Congressional Spending & Other Parts Of Government?

I ask this because in the book Decision Points George W. Bush mentioned that before the 2006 mid-term elections how he had complained to Sen. Mitch McConnell about the amount of money that was being spent on PORK projects and the high spending in general.  So if he had little to no control over congressional spending was President Bush really a progressive financially? I don't think he held as much influence over what went on in congress as President Obama did with a super majority in congress or even with how much influence Obama holds over the Democrat controlled Senate today. Plus, I  don't think that congress under President Bush had a super majority of Republicans like Obama did during his first two years in office.  I understand the President Bush had to sign the budgets but if there was enough support to override a presidential veto then it wouldn't matter if the president objected to a particular piece of legislation if congress did in fact veto it.
We can talk about the constitutionality of this or that piece of legislation under President Bush but the fact is he usually if not all of the time went to and garnered approval from congress so as to avoid going beyond his powers as President as defined by the Constitution.  As bad as one may think Bush was with overstepping his presidential powers with regards to the war on terror Obama is much worse. In addition people need to ask themselves: After 9/11 what were people demanding? To feel safe, to be safe and to catch the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocents. After hearing the needs of the people President Bush responded in kind. Obama has trampled over the Constitution, bypassed the constitution, ignored the constitution, and abused his powers as President of the United States especially with regards to executive orders and instituting regulations via the various agencies.  President Bush respected the constitution or at least tried to do the right thing according to the constitution while President Obama has no respect for, disregards the constitution and sees it as an obstacle to the powers he wishes he could have as president.

Here is a video on how congress and our President are steamrolling right over and refusing to respect the checks and balances that are in our constitution.

Here is a video on checks and balances.


Constitutional Insurgent said...

There's no question that Obama has at least tried to circumvent the Constitutional process on many occasions [though "trampled" is unfounded rhetoric].

I do not however, give GW Bush slack for embroiling our defense and national security apparatus in two exceeding long nation building campaigns while al Qaeda reconstituted itself as a far more dangerous franchise builder. Obama has merely continued this, much to his discredit.

Teresa said...

I can understand you disagreeing with the way that George W. Bush went about defending our nation. More so with Iraq than Afghanistan though. His main purpose was to spread freedom and free people from tyrannical, brutal leaders and/or people. But I do think it was important that we went after Osama Bin Laden, al qaeda and those that were harboring them - the people behind 9/11.

There was peace, they started to nation build in Afghanistan, and then about a couple years later the Taliban/al qaeda resurged but I'm not sure that was due to us nation building or whether that would have happened regardless whether we did nation building or not, and I don't see any evidence in Afghanistan or Iraq which supports that al qaeda is more dangerous than before.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

The problem arose when we took our focus off of Afghanistan without it being pacified - and legitimately led. We transitioned from invasion to Counterinsurgency without the central tenet of COIN in place - legitimate governance. We then transitioned the vast weight of effort on a nation that had not attacked us, nor aided and abetted those who did.

This allowed the various Talib groups to reconstitute and resurg.

Regarding the present, al Qaeda is resurgent in Iraq and various franchises and have taken hold in the Arabian Peninsula, Horn of Africa and Trans Sahel.

Obama has been abysmal in the foreign policy arena, but he has been nearly indiscernible from his predecessor.

Bush presided over the Patriot Act and the TSA...Obama has the continuance of the same as well as the NDAA.

Teresa said...

But the TSA didn't become utterly intrusive until after the Obama administration took over. Personally I think private companies would probably be better suited to take care of our security at airports and elsewhere.

There are things I like and dislike about The Patriot Act. After 9/11 citizens demanded and had a right to expect to be safe. This is what congress and Bush came up with in response. While I do think some things need to be changed to make it in conformity with our constitution I also know of quite a few instances where The Patriot Act was used successfully to stop terrorists.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Re: TSA...I concur with using competitive, private security firms.

But if your intrusive reference is regarding the backscatter body scanners....the first 10 were installed by the TSA in the summer of 2008.

Teresa said...

"But if your intrusive reference is regarding the backscatter body scanners....the first 10 were installed by the TSA in the summer of 2008."

As intrusive as the body scanners are that wasn't what I was referring to. I was talking about the feel-ups and nanny depends and other medical intrusions.

Bunkerville said...

Pretty sad when you have to use the Russian news media to point out our flaw! Says it all.