H
Hu_Fan
Guest
Mr. Obama is now speaking live with a supportive group behind him, proclaiming the legislative body did not do it's job by not proceeding with gun legislation as, he says, it should.
What he is doing is making an argument as if presenting a case hearing in a court. What he is failing to do is recognize THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
By his standards, every case of law should have an outcome that the population believes should be the outcome.
Hang the process.
This an abuse of the power of his office. His argument of how the process worked -- how Senators did not follow the will of 90% of the population (he says) -- can be said about every bit of legislation, every issue and every matter in state and national politics for the history of the country.
If you want to make arguments for specific legislation, then take the time to do this with every bill in both houses, for the rest of your term of office. You will be holding these press conferences regularly for the rest of your term of office.
You're arguing the points of the piece of legislation -- but the whole point is that the body of Congress, that third branch of government, has the right and ability to exercise it's branch of government without coercion from the Executive Branch that is being conducted in this fashion.
The merits and points of this piece of legislation is not the issue -- the conduct of the branches of our government is.
I respectively disagree with how you are handling your position on legislation from the Oval Office. You've continued to assume Rights of King in telling everyone how things should be, even telling the Congress how it has to act and proceed. If they don't then you're rallying the country to rise up force Congress to do as you think they should.
"All in all this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Mr. Obama just said.
Right you are, Mr. Obama. Right you are.
Part II. My bias, my views.
My personal views on gun legislation is that it should not happen in order not to set a precedent that an emotionally-charged issue can step on the Constitutional processes of government. If it goes the way the President wants it to go it will do two things: (a) prove that emotions can sweep over the country and allow a leader to shove the country in a certain direction, and (b) can encourage over-stepping of power at the Executive Branch.
In general, I don't want the 2nd Amendment infringed upon just as a matter of principle even if legislation said 29-round magazines were okay but not 30-round.
I don't want the government having the power to change any part of especially the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments. I think that principle -- not infringing on aspect of the Bill of Rights -- outweighs any specific point of any of those rights. The pure principle that government cannot infringe on the matter, PERIOD. Otherwise it is a dangerous path to go down. Any year or decade before us, something could come up such that the leader in the White House can use even more powerful media to 'whip up the country' into a fury of emotion to overturn, rewrite or modify the Constitution or any law of the land.
That is why the Legislative Branch is what it is: so those elected can come together with cooler and more patient heads and put on the brakes and think things through and not have one person on a podium emotionally rallying tens of millions of the public into immediate action of "whatever seems necessary" ... need I say more.
Today Mr. Obama was mad -- I mean furious, just livid -- that someone took some of that power away from him. This is starting to become an issue of his power -- has less to do with specific legislation. Has a lot more to do with power, in my opinion.
I'm somewhat worried what he might resort to if he feels he is continuously losing the power he assumed he was taking when he made his Jan 2013 inaugural address.
This Presidency is becoming a Shakespearen drama.
What he is doing is making an argument as if presenting a case hearing in a court. What he is failing to do is recognize THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
By his standards, every case of law should have an outcome that the population believes should be the outcome.
Hang the process.
This an abuse of the power of his office. His argument of how the process worked -- how Senators did not follow the will of 90% of the population (he says) -- can be said about every bit of legislation, every issue and every matter in state and national politics for the history of the country.
If you want to make arguments for specific legislation, then take the time to do this with every bill in both houses, for the rest of your term of office. You will be holding these press conferences regularly for the rest of your term of office.
You're arguing the points of the piece of legislation -- but the whole point is that the body of Congress, that third branch of government, has the right and ability to exercise it's branch of government without coercion from the Executive Branch that is being conducted in this fashion.
The merits and points of this piece of legislation is not the issue -- the conduct of the branches of our government is.
I respectively disagree with how you are handling your position on legislation from the Oval Office. You've continued to assume Rights of King in telling everyone how things should be, even telling the Congress how it has to act and proceed. If they don't then you're rallying the country to rise up force Congress to do as you think they should.
"All in all this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Mr. Obama just said.
Right you are, Mr. Obama. Right you are.
Part II. My bias, my views.
My personal views on gun legislation is that it should not happen in order not to set a precedent that an emotionally-charged issue can step on the Constitutional processes of government. If it goes the way the President wants it to go it will do two things: (a) prove that emotions can sweep over the country and allow a leader to shove the country in a certain direction, and (b) can encourage over-stepping of power at the Executive Branch.
In general, I don't want the 2nd Amendment infringed upon just as a matter of principle even if legislation said 29-round magazines were okay but not 30-round.
I don't want the government having the power to change any part of especially the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments. I think that principle -- not infringing on aspect of the Bill of Rights -- outweighs any specific point of any of those rights. The pure principle that government cannot infringe on the matter, PERIOD. Otherwise it is a dangerous path to go down. Any year or decade before us, something could come up such that the leader in the White House can use even more powerful media to 'whip up the country' into a fury of emotion to overturn, rewrite or modify the Constitution or any law of the land.
That is why the Legislative Branch is what it is: so those elected can come together with cooler and more patient heads and put on the brakes and think things through and not have one person on a podium emotionally rallying tens of millions of the public into immediate action of "whatever seems necessary" ... need I say more.
Today Mr. Obama was mad -- I mean furious, just livid -- that someone took some of that power away from him. This is starting to become an issue of his power -- has less to do with specific legislation. Has a lot more to do with power, in my opinion.
I'm somewhat worried what he might resort to if he feels he is continuously losing the power he assumed he was taking when he made his Jan 2013 inaugural address.
This Presidency is becoming a Shakespearen drama.
