Now In Charge Of Congress, GOP Plans To Give Up Its Own Constitutional Powers To The Obama Administration

from the say-what-now? dept

As you've probably heard, the Republicans decisively took control over Congress in the election on Tuesday, and are now strategizing on exactly what plan they'll choose to try not to mess things up too badly by the time the 2016 elections come around. The Washington Post has a short segment on the "quick votes" the GOP is planning for January to show that rather than blocking everything, it can actually pass some stuff -- including "fast track" legislation on trade agreements:
With the 2016 presidential campaign already looming large, McConnell (Ky.) and Boehner (Ohio) are both eager to shed the party’s image as an unruly collection of obstructionists and far-right ideologues.

The remedy, they have decided: Act quickly to send President Obama bills with bipartisan support to fast-track international trade agreements, repeal an unpopular tax on medical devices and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
We've talked about this "Fast Track" authority for years (it's also referred to as "Trade Promotion Authority"). The issue is that, under the Constitution, Congress and not the executive branch, has the sole power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." The executive branch has always been able to negotiate agreements, but it's Congress that has the power to regulate. "Fast Track" authority or Trade Promotion Authority is effectively Congress handing that right over to the executive branch, by saying that the only thing it can do when brought a trade agreement is vote up or down on the whole thing, rather than actually look at the details of the agreement and send the USTR back to fix the problematic parts.

You can understand why the USTR and the administration want the fast track to go, because it means they can actually promise things during negotiations that are more difficult to promise without that power. But it does seem very, very odd that a Republican Congress that seems to constantly complain about too much power in the executive branch, seems to have no problem whatsoever abdicating its Constitutional powers to that very same executive branch on major trade agreements that could reshape regulations worldwide.

Part of the problem, of course, is that people have been told that this is about "free trade" agreements -- and Republicans claim to be in support of free trade. But that's wrong. The big agreements, like the TPP and TTIP/TAFTA are not about "free trade" for the most part. Most tariff barriers have been chipped away for years. These agreements are about regulations and locking in certain regulations to limit the sovereignty of various nations to pass their own regulations. It's just protectionism in a different colored coat, dressed up to look like free trade -- complete with a dollop of extra sovereignty for corporations. Thus, it seems very odd that a Republican controlled Congress -- one that insists it's all about the Constitution -- has decided that it's first order of business is to give up one of Congress' main constitutional powers to an administration controlled by the opposing party.

Filed Under: congress, fast track, fast track authority, gop, republicans, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, trade promotion authority, ttip


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 5 Nov 2014 @ 9:06pm

    Not so odd after all

    The key phrase is this:

    'by the time the 2016 elections come around'

    Give the WH the ultimate authority, and you also give them the ultimate blame should things go wrong(which should happen, oh, at about the same time the public sees what their government just agreed to in their names).

    'Hey, don't look at us, we didn't have a choice, we had to accept the entire deal, we didn't have a choice to get rid of that particular part you're objecting to! If you want to blame someone, blame Obama and the democrats!'

    Alternatively, or should I say in addition to the above, while 'deals' like these may be terrible for the citizens of the countries, they are great for the large businesses in them, and the republicans are all about big business(in the same way the democrats are about big government).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 5:26am

      Re: Not so odd after all

      In the past, there has been discussions about a presidential line item veto. They went nowhere.

      These politicians like to pretend they give a shit about their constituents, but they don't.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Tom, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:02am

      Re: Not so odd after all

      I'm old, I have no kids, I really don't care any more.

      I've long said that this country is gridlocked by partisanship and greed. It got that way via a vast majority of fools who buy into the religious and party rhetoric to decide which way to cast their vote.

      I've finally decided that there's only one way it will change. We need one party in total control. It doesn't matter which one, either will royally fuck the country and it's people over. What will matter is that if one party is in total control then they can't lay the blame elsewhere. The old guard in that party will be voted out as will the party's control.

      The other party will then jump in and screw everyone over just as bad, but in a different way, and the same will happen to them.

      At that point the country will be so fucked that the people will not only be up in arms, but they will have learned their lesson, and we'll see a revolt. It will be scary, nasty, and possibly bloody, but we may come out of it with a direction and purpose and a chance to see out country become great again, instead of a corporate landfill.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Pragmatic, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:17am

        Re: Re: Not so odd after all

        That's the way it's going, Tom, because everyone is hoping for a great big hero to ride in on a white horse to save us. That's not going to happen.

        Meanwhile, we've got people decrying democracy as mob rule and government as unwarranted interference in all the things when we actually need enough to get things done without getting in the way.

        If, as I suspect, the Reps screw the country over by implementing the Ryan Plan (either before or after 2016) and turning us into a theocratic oligarchy, the people will indeed revolt. I'm just hoping they'll do it at the ballot box by voting 3rd party en masse. The only reason we generally vote for the two parties is that we're afraid the other party will get in. When we stop caring about that, we'll be able to vote 3rd party with confidence knowing that, if enough other people vote for them, they'll get in.

        There are many third parties to vote for; educate yourself and spread the word. Let's give both of the big parties a smack in 2016 by voting someone else into office. It's better than getting into a bloody mess and an even more paranoid police state.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 6 Nov 2014 @ 2:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not so odd after all

          That's the way it's going, Tom, because everyone is hoping for a great big hero to ride in on a white horse to save us. That's not going to happen.

          Give us credit. We tried a black donkey this time round.

          Next up: a pink elephant.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2014 @ 5:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so odd after all

            "We tried a black donkey this time round."

            The white elephant allowed 9/11 and a recession to happen.
            The black donkey's had to spend his entire tenure cleaning up elephant poop.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:35am

        Re: Re: Not so odd after all

        "We need one party in total control. It doesn't matter which one,"


        Wrong. It matters, a lot.
        Even the hardcore GOP is having a tough time dealing with tea party american taliban types. Putting these ideologues in positions of power is suicidal.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Kobe Beef, 6 Nov 2014 @ 7:57am

          Re: Re: Re: Not so odd after all

          Taliban types? Those crazy ideologues...
          Democrats and their unicorns. Washington was a taliban type.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 5:40pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so odd after all

            Apparently you need to read more - the only explanation is that they are nuts.
            1) "I'm not a scientist but ...."
            2) “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,”. Certainly you have read about these folks who try and some success in attaining office - right?
            3) "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
            4) ... many more ...

            And Washington did not want to proclaim a national religion, nor did he want to fight an endless war everywhere while denying citizens access to a livable wage and medical care. You are right in at least one instance as he did accept slavery.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2014 @ 5:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so odd after all

            The Taliban restrict womens' rights.
            Republicans restrict womens' rights.
            There are numerous other examples, boy.

            George Washington didn't threaten those who didn't think like him with death, boy.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        art guerrilla (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 10:38am

        Re: Re: Not so odd after all

        @ tom-
        we *do* have one party, its called the Korporate Money Party, and the dem'rats and rethugs are just two faces of the same party...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Morgan Wick, 6 Nov 2014 @ 3:20pm

        Re: Re: Not so odd after all

        We had one party in total control royally screwing the country over during the Bush years, and we didn't even have time for the Democrats to do the same (in part because they're too timid to do the same) before the Republicans managed to reinvent themselves as the complete antithesis of everything they did when they were in power.

        We need to change the way we vote. Our first-past-the-post system is the absolute worst way to elect a government and pretty much guarantees a two-party system, especially when you have a powerful directly-elected executive like we do. (If you really want a strong third party, vote them into Congress and your state legislatures, and lower levels of government too.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 7 Nov 2014 @ 8:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Not so odd after all

          "we didn't even have time for the Democrats to do the same (in part because they're too timid to do the same)"

          I don't think it's timidity, actually. I think it's the result of one of the very real cultural differences between the two parties. Republicans tend to operate in lockstep, and value toeing the party line above all else -- even by party members who may disagree with a particular stance. Democrats are not like this so much, which is why it's so often said that getting agreement within the Democratic party is like herding cats.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Nov 2014 @ 9:29pm

    They all bow to the same corporate masters, so this is just making things easier for those who can afford the most speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 5 Nov 2014 @ 9:54pm

      Re:

      Indeed, elections aren't cheap, got to show that those who paid their for their ticket into the cushy seat that they know who they work for, so they'll be willing to cough up more money come next election.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 5 Nov 2014 @ 10:00pm

    Finding common ground

    Steamrolling over democratic procedures in the corporate interest: now that's something both parties can agree on.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 10:11pm

    And this is why I don't vote

    "Would you like Corporate Shill A or Corporate Shill B?"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 12:28am

      Re: And this is why I don't vote

      This is *exactly* why you *should* vote. Just don't vote for A or B. If enough people start to do this, then you might actually see some change.

      "But my vote doesn't count then" is often the rejoinder, to which I say, so what? You need to *start* somewhere. Maybe your candidate only gets a handful of votes this election. Then you need to *keep trying*, hoping that more and more people will jump on board *next* election. Saying "He'll never get elected anyway" is a self fulfilling prophecy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 6 Nov 2014 @ 3:11am

        Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

        "But my vote doesn't count then" is often the rejoinder, to which I say, so what?

        Counting less than a vote that is not cast at all? Hardly.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:00am

          Re: Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:02am

          Re: Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

          You're both wrong. The vote does count, as a vote against *both* A and B.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mason Wheeler (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 10:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

            Because that's worked sooooo well for us in the past.

            Look at our recent history. Remember Bush Sr.? "Read my lips, no new taxes." And then he broke that promise, and the voters threw him out and replaced him with a guy who was just the opposite: a (relatively) young, hip, saxophone-playing cool dude who oh-by-the-way turned out to be a sexual predator.

            So 8 years of one-scandal-after-another later, the American people were sick of Bill Clinton, so we went and elected a guy who was just the opposite. With the way he ended up getting caricatured later on in his presidency, it's easy to forget that Dubya originally ran on very explicitly being the anti-Clinton and "restoring dignity to the White House." Yeah.

            And after 8 years of doing his best to destroy what little dignity remained to the office of President after Clinton, the American people were sick of him and we went and elected someone who essentially ran on exactly the same platform as Dubya did: Hope And Change. Obama positioned himself as the guy who was just the opposite, and it worked... and look what it got us.

            Every president has been worse than the one before him for, at the very least, 4 presidencies now. But if this continues, and we elect our next president because of who he's not again, instead of who he is, then things will just continue to get worse. Remember the definition of insanity popularly attributed to Albert Einstein: continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Libertarian Dude, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:08am

      Re: And this is why I don't vote

      If only people like you would vote Libertarian we'd have some real choices. Right now both parties can count on the other to screw up enough that they'll get back in power. Simply not voting keeps that going nicely. We all need to vote third party or interdependent.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:13am

        Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

        Libertarians are still Republicans and want to remove regulations and social programs , make a real difference and vote Independent.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JP Jones (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 10:29am

        Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

        Libertarianism is an inherently flawed concept. The assumption that a "free" market can exist without regulation is a fairy tale that those who abuse the system would love for you to believe.

        Exhibit #1: Clinton deregulated Wall Street, and ten years later the whole thing practically collapses.

        Corruption and back-dealing exist in real life, and you can't create an economic model based purely on competition without factoring in those who manipulate the market.

        Exhibit #2: If you want to see an almost entirely "free" market, check out Eve Online, which has a fairly representative free market economy. It's also full of huge corporations that manipulate the market and completely steamroll smaller corporations economically. The economy works (especially since resources are essentially unlimited as they refresh themselves) but there is virtually no advantage to the "small business".

        What we actually need is business regulation by people without an investment or other incentive to help certain businesses. Unfortunately this doesn't exist, hence we get the widespread corruption with regulation because those regulations are ineffective.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 11:12am

          Re: Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

          "Libertarianism is an inherently flawed concept. The assumption that a "free" market can exist without regulation is a fairy tale that those who abuse the system would love for you to believe."

          This.

          Adam "Invisible Hand" Smith, one of the primary luminaries behind the concept of the free market and someone who is held in high esteem by free market proponents, even argues this outright in his work "The Wealth of Nations".

          He observes that in the absence of regulation, the free market will inevitably devolve into monopoly or oligopoly since success in the market is self-amplifying. As you get bigger and more powerful, they will use that power to exclude smaller players, reducing the amount of competition until only a small number remain.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mason Wheeler (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 11:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

            He also made a strong argument in favor of progressive taxation. Funny how directly quoting the Father of Capitalism will get you branded as a dirty socialist by "capitalists" these days...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 12:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

              Indeed. The problem that the modern "capitalists" have when it comes to Adam Smith is that he was extremely wary of both government and corporations and his positions tended to be nuanced and well thought out, so they don't really lend themselves well to demagoguery. They resolve that problem by ignoring a lot of what he said and misrepresenting a lot of what they don't ignore.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                David, 6 Nov 2014 @ 2:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And this is why I don't vote

                They resolve that problem by ignoring a lot of what he said and misrepresenting a lot of what they don't ignore.

                Sounds like any old book religion.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whoever, 5 Nov 2014 @ 10:22pm

    This is all about 2016

    What's Obama's move now: to make the GOP look like a "do-nothing" party. By giving Obama the responsibility, they attempt to head off this characterization.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 5:30am

      Re: This is all about 2016

      They attempt to head off the label of a do nothing congress?
      You mean the label they have been wearing for the past six years? They even publicly stated in 2008 that they would be obstructionist to the point of shutting down the government in order to get their wish list. Nothing has changed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:33am

      Re: This is all about 2016

      He will find some way to blame them. Considering he blames them for thinking up his own ideas when they turn out to be bad.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2014 @ 6:03am

        Re: Re: This is all about 2016

        "Considering he blames them for thinking up his own ideas when they turn out to be bad."

        You mean the way they disown their own ideas when he makes them work, boy?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 1:10am

    I fear I'm repeating myself by now but why should the Congress exist at all if they don't want to do their jobs? They don't want to oversee the intelligence services, they don't want to deal with trade agreements, they don't want to review legislation... Sometimes it makes me wonder if it isn't a deliberate move to weaken one of the powers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 6 Nov 2014 @ 3:18am

      Re:

      The main power of Congress is to accept bribes in return for not doing their job. Representatives invested a lot of money and election lies upfront to get into that position.

      Don't you think they deserve harvesting the reward for being willing to sacrifice their reputation? As congress members, their trustworthiness is currently ranked at the bottom of the scale, below used car salesmen.

      Shouldn't they be able to offer their spouses and children some recompensation for the shame they must be feeling?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:35am

        Re: Re:

        below lawyers that know their clients are guilty I would say

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 1:21pm

        Re: Re:

        Shouldn't they be able to offer their spouses and children some recompensation for the shame they must be feeling?

        I'm pretty sure the core requirement for any public office is a complete and utter inability to feel shame. Fake it, yes, but not feel it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 5:33am

      Re:

      And the fact that they wag their fingers at the unemployed for not getting a job ... is not even funny anymore.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 3:01am

    Are the newly elects so sure of their party's next presidential candidate that they set all their future prospects on gaining the white house in the next election so they won't have to bother with the other party's opposition in law-making when they give up all the legislative powers?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 4:34am

      Re:

      They did it before, why not?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:29am

      Re:

      If you saw that Hillary was the Democrat's de facto nominee, wouldn't you assume the GOP would have to start eating babies in order to lose it?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:42am

        Re: Re:

        No, I wouldn't assume that at all. Hillary is not universally loved by Democrats and is even less popular amongst independents. If anyone thinks she's an unstoppable force, they simply aren't paying attention.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh, I had a reading comprehension failure. You're not saying Clinton would be a shoo-in. Sorry. Where's my coffee??

          Although I don't think she's so hated that if she were the nominee it would guarantee a Republican win, either. The people who really despise her tend to be Republicans in the first place.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            tqk (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 1:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh, I had a reading comprehension failure. You're not saying Clinton would be a shoo-in. Sorry. Where's my coffee??

            That's a lot better than some of my excuses. But you're wrong. I was saying she appeared to be the de facto shoe-in nominee, so you were right the first time.

            On second thought, maybe she's just hoping to keep her hat in the ring so she can end up with yet another secretary of something-or-other when she loses. Attorney General, Ambassador to Russia, head of the UN?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 7 Nov 2014 @ 8:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I was saying she appeared to be the de facto shoe-in nominee, so you were right the first time."

              Heh. Yes, I do sometimes trip over my own feet! I was actually addressing a slightly different thing, though (apparently equally incorrect): I'm not talking about whether or not she'd be a shoo-in to become the nominee -- although I'm not at all sure that she is -- but about whether or not she'd be a shoo-in to win the presidency if she ran.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 3:42am

    We've given up our constitutional rights to the king. Why shouldn't our representatives do the same?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 5:39am

      Re:

      More like 'had them taken away' as there was no national referendum, no one asked beforehand and representative government is a joke.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:35am

        Re: Re:

        More like 'had them taken away' ...

        They didn't take it away. You lost it. Your interpretation is specifically denied by the 4th Amendment. You failed to defend it. Take your lumps, serf.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:37am

        Re: Re:

        there is always revolt when doing things the paper way fails. Americans have no one to blame but their own apathy for letting things get this bad.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 5:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah right. It's all your fault.

          Gerrymandering is put to a vote state wide? When did this occur?

          Disenfranchisement is something we all voted on? Not.

          In rich GOP districts voting is a breeze. In poor and middle class districts things are quite different. There is a reason for this and it is intentional.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 4:23am

    Thus, it seems very odd that a Republican controlled Congress -- one that insists it's all about the Constitution -- has decided that it's first order of business is to give up one of Congress' main constitutional powers to an administration controlled by the opposing party.

    Why does it seem odd? The R's are business friendly to a fault. They only insist it's "all about the Constitution" when gun control comes up. The rest of the time... not so much.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 4:59am

    The constitution is to the government what the Bible is to religious leaders: quote the parts that support your position, ignore the parts that dont.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lactose Intolerant, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:02am

      Re: Who doesn't?

      Just the government does that? Liberals on separation of church and state. Rednecks on freedom of religion. Everyone is using the bits that shine for them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lactose Intolerant, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:06am

      Re: Religious leaders?

      All religious leaders use the bible, right? I don't know how you rate so high on insightful.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2014 @ 6:47am

        Re: Re: Religious leaders?

        I voted it insightful because I agree, and because using "Bible" instead of "religious text serving as the keystone for the belief system of a given theistic sect" seems like a reasonable choice that favors brevity and readability over pedantic technicalities.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Cal (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 5:59am

    Give up their constitutional assigned powers

    They cannot.

    The moment they do so they are TRAITORS to the USA. If we allow that to happen, we deserve the democide that will be used on us as it has been in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russian, Mao's China, etc.

    That is not only against our supreme law, it is TREASON, and it would be Terrorism against the USA and Americans. (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.)

    Isn't anyone bothering to educate themselves anymore here in the USA? And I do not mean in a narrow sense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:29am

      Re: Give up their constitutional assigned powers

      Good luck getting anyone to see it that way... Congress and the Executive branch have been traitors to America's foundation for quite some time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:39am

      Re: Give up their constitutional assigned powers

      Most of the American government commits treason on a daily basis at this point. Your vaunted constitution is being used to wipe their asses.

      Your rights are being ignored, people are being murdered by those that are supposed to be protecting them. Your land is being stolen by your overlords. Wake up.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:07am

    This is a trap for Obama if he says yes and the people hate it , It falls squarely on his shoulders, If he says no the republicans will say we made a bipartisan effort but Obama will not work with us, POLLitics as usual.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:44am

    It just makes it easier for them to point the finger at Obama if things go wrong, and take credit if they go right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    tomczerniawski, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:57am

    Centralization of power. An un-elected shadow government which determines the nation's policy toward the world. Total surveillance. A growing police/prison state. Worship of military, and heavy militarization of society.

    Hmm. I know I've read about a country like this in my history books at some point... perhaps someone could refresh my memory?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 7:42am

    I'll believe it when I see it

    This is too much of a risk for Republicans: what happens if the president gives them a bill that will make him look popular? Uh, oh, now the Democrats are getting public support going into the 2016 election.

    So instead of being the obstructionist party, they'll be the "agree to everything" party. But again, I'll believe it when I see it- it just seems like too many Republicans have it out for Obama that they would never compromise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kobe Beef, 6 Nov 2014 @ 7:53am

    Bias much?

    The democrats lost for a reason. Get over it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:09am

      Re: Bias much?

      did the democrats lose because republicans were better or did the democrats lose because the democrats were bad kobe?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Kobe Beef, 6 Nov 2014 @ 10:38am

        Re: Re: Bias much?

        Both

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Kobe Beef, 6 Nov 2014 @ 10:45am

        Re: Re: Bias much?

        I think you need to think about that question. If the democrats were bad, then the republicans were better.

        I don't have any grand illusions of hope and change, I just can't stand the rationalizing by the left. What happened? Oops. We fucked up. No, it was the smart planning by republicans? No! It was anything besides Obama.

        It was Obama and his administration that gave it away. Blame him for once.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 5:50pm

      Re: Bias much?

      The deck is stacked - get over it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:13am

    so....

    does anyone here think the democrats have enough to stop it? i know that is a stupid question maybe THE most stupid question you can ask but does anyone think it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lurker Keith, 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:23am

    You've got to be kidding me...

    *facepalm* You mean the ONE "good" thing to come out the Republicans holding both Houses (blocking the bad stuff Obama, or his cronies he isn't keeping on a leash, wants), the Republicans are AWOL on? Don't they know that's kinda WHY they were given control?

    If they go through w/ this, it will backfire on them. Badly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:05am

    i will be honest boys and girls

    at this rate were pretty much f#####. only way i can really see change imo is if either A: the democrat and republican parties finally die the unholy death they deserve or B: younger people get in office *or the ####s that are currently it die off at last* and we get people that know about things like this in.

    kinda horrible thing to say *if you still think these guys have some worth in them* but thats just how i see it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:47am

      Re: i will be honest boys and girls

      your forefathers chose another option when confronted by a similar problem with the king and the house of lords.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 11:43am

        Re: Re: i will be honest boys and girls

        at the risk of being black bagged by some government agency

        GOD I WISH THEY WOULD.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 9:31am

    1 party 2 faces

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kobe Beef, 6 Nov 2014 @ 11:04am

    1 face, 2 parties.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TDR, 6 Nov 2014 @ 11:09am

    Just nuke DC from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 11:40am

      Re:

      exterminatus is the only way.

      over and over and over and over-damn it! just blow a hole through it and wipe out the survivors!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 11:36am

    Oh yeah, no such thing as a one party system

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Zonker, 6 Nov 2014 @ 11:53am

    Democrat? Republican? Just two sides of the same corroded double headed coin. Flip the coin and it will always come up heads.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GEMont (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 2:12pm

    Bu-bye America the Brave. Hello Amerika the Broke.

    Finally.

    No more pussyfooting around the constitution now.

    This should be fascinating to watch.

    In the next six months, the Republicans (AKA Neo-Fascists) will now be able to set America back 20 more years - and end any possibility of recovery, while installing every bad law and every bad "trade-free agreement" that has been considered over the last decade by the billionaires running the country - without even the semblance of opposition.

    And, let the show begin.

    ---

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 4:24pm

    Seems appropriate

    From Emerson Lake and Palmer: in part

    [Karn Evil 9 1st Impression Part 2]

    Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
    We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside
    There behind a glass stands a real blade of grass
    Be careful as you pass, move along, move along

    Come inside, the show's about to start
    Guaranteed to blow your head apart
    Rest assured you'll get your money's worth
    Greatest show in Heaven, Hell or Earth
    You've got to see the show, it's a dynamo
    You've got to see the show, it's rock and roll, oh

    Right before your eyes we pull laughter from the skies
    And he laughs until he cries, then he dies, then he dies

    Come inside, the show's about to start
    Guaranteed to blow your head apart
    You've got to see the show, it's a dynamo
    You've got to see the show, it's rock and roll, oh

    Soon the Gypsy Queen in a glaze of vaseline
    Will perform on guillotine, what a scene, what a scene
    Next upon the stand will you please extend a hand
    To Alexander's Ragtime Band, Dixieland, Dixieland

    Roll up, roll up, roll up
    See the show

    Performing on a stool we've a sight to make you drool
    Seven virgins and a mule, keep it cool, keep it cool
    We would like it to be known the exhibits that were shown
    Were exclusively our own, all our own, all our own

    Come and see the show, come and see the show
    Come and see the show
    See the show

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      GEMont (profile), 9 Nov 2014 @ 2:56pm

      Re: Seems appropriate

      Indeed. Very appropriate.

      The only real "benefit" now, is that the press will no longer be telling the public anything important, or anything real.

      So, at least the American Public will now sleep better, even if things are actually getting much, much worse.

      Ignorance is Bliss, even if bliss is a useless defense in war.

      So break out the bread, usher in the clowns and let the show begin.

      We have lost the war because we are too cowardly to admit to ourselves who the enemy is, but we can still go down smiling, if not actually happy.

      ---

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2014 @ 5:30am

        Re: Re: Seems appropriate

        Why will "the press" not be reporting anything important?
        hint: the press is not just MSM

        Yeah, the public is asleep - not.

        Lost what war ?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          GEMont (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 1:11am

          Re: Re: Re: Seems appropriate

          "Why will "the press" not be reporting anything important?"

          Because they won't have time to report anything important between all the PR BS the new Repubbie Feds need publically disseminated. Fascists believe that the public should only be informed enough to keep them happily consuming. But you already knew that anyways didn't you.

          "hint: the press is not just MSM"

          What is MSM?

          "Yeah, the public is asleep - not."

          Sorry. Did not mean to wake you. Just roll over and go back to pretending everything is just fine. Sleep well now.

          "Lost what war ?"

          I rest my case. :)

          ---

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.