« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama's First 100 Days: What We Have to Look Forward To
For so many of us at TPM, I'm sure this election not only means the opportunity to select a worthy person for the presidency, but to also take an active part as citizens in the restoration of this shambles our beleaguered republic has become. If Obama's goals for his first one-hundred days as President are any indication of what we have to expect, I think we will be well on our way to doing just that.
Bush’s laws will be scrutinized if I become president, Obama says
Posted by: Deborah Charles
DENVER - Maybe it’s his background teaching constitutional law.
If elected president, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said
one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality
of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President
George W. Bush has been in office.
Those that don’t pass muster will be overturned, he said.
During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama — a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School — was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.
“I would call my attorney general in and review every single
executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or
executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama.
Other goals for his first 100 days: work out a plan to withdraw
troops from Iraq; make progress on alternative energy plans and launch
legislation to reform the health care system. source
Comments (23)
Damn straight. Good catch.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/seeing-no-evil-can-come-to-no.php#comment-2855815
May 29, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a really important reason for Obama to be our nominee, as it is an important reason that HRC not be.
Obama (and Edwards if he should be appointed AG) are trustworthy. In their hands, we can feel confident that the Constitutional rights we have lost will be restored, that the SC will be brought back into balance, and that the entire system of checks and balances will be brought back into equilibrium.they are about protecting and restoring the Constitution.
If, on the other hand, Clinton were to wrest the nomination away, she would apply the same lack of ethic to her view of checks and balances that she has demonstrated in her campaign tactics. Her view would be that some of the erosion caused by GWB -- too much executive power, for example -- would suit her nicely, thank you very much.
An aside. Interesting how physically and psychologically relaxing it is to imagine Obama in charge of checks and balances -- which makes me realize how much of the time we are on red alert waiting for the next Bush or Clinton power incursion.
May 29, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as an Obama supporter, I emphatically DO NOT intend to trust him, Edwards, or anyone else, should O be nominated and win. I intend to watch them, hound them, pressure them to make sure they do the right thing -- and if they don't, impeach them. Constitutional checks and balances, when functioning properly, are not about trust. Or at least they shouldn't be.
Nor will I feel "relaxed" about O or ANY PRESIDENT "in charge of" C&B. Under our system of government, the President does not get to be in charge of C&B. That's the business of ALL THREE branches of government -- and while the Republicans have been the criminals in this train wreck for the last 8 years, the Democrats have been aidors, abettors, and enablers. They have effectively allowed the judiciary to be destroyed as a guardian of C&B, thanks to allowing Roberts and Alito (who care nothing for the Constitution) to be confirmed. The same goes for numerous district and circuit court judges. The Dems have also stood by while Congress lost its power as a co-equal branch, and the Pelosi/Reid party has shown very little stomach for getting it back.
So no, I will not feel "relaxed" about C&B even if Obama wins, I don't want him "in charge" of C&B, and I don't intend to trust him or any other President.
If he does roll back his own power, I'll cheer. But I can count the times in history that has happened without even resorting to my other hand. If he doesn't, we had better be prepared to force him to do it.
That said, I do think we'll have a much easier (or less difficult) time doing that with a President Obama than with a President McCain or Clinton.
I will be away from my computer, and this blog, until Sunday. I try to stick around to read replies, and I'll try to do so then.
May 30, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and btw -- Presidents don't "overturn laws." They can rescind executive orders. Courts can overturn laws by declaring them unconstitutional. And Congress can repeal its own laws, and (I think) can override at least some executive orders.
That's how it's supposed to work.
Maybe that was sloppy speech or sloppy reporting, but I'm not happy with it.
May 30, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the reality check.
May 30, 2008 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
If HRC would simply say the same thing, I could vote for her in good conscience this fall; that is, if she were to somehow win the nomination.
May 29, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Danke schoen! To you, ami, and to Barack!
May 29, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha! Won't it be funny to have a president who has respect for the constitution? It seems like the dream is in sight...
May 29, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
we need a blanket nullification of ALL bush signing statements
every federal employee should be put on notice that ANYBODY who ignored a law passed by Congress based upon a george bush signing statement will be prosecuted
let the federal employees try to explainto a jury how george bush has some mythical power to change laws passed by Congress
federal employees take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution
any federal employee who chose to protect george bush instead of the Constitution should be jailed for the full term of punishment specified by law
May 29, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that they're protected by the assumption of good faith.
May 29, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
The more I contemplate Obama's statement, the more it astounds me and pleases me. It really recognizes that, as terrible as the war in Iraq and the other atrocities the Bush administration is responsible for are, those things are really just the results of a more fundamental problem: the total disregard for the constitutional checks and balances which build the foundation for our democracy. Before we can do anything else, these have to be restored.
Obama really gets it, folks!
May 29, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad you don't.
May 29, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ones "he feels violates the constitution".
Only the ones "he feels"??
Meet the new boss...
May 29, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH, go and sit on a thistle! So what if his words don't suit you? At least he is making the point that this outlaw regime's remnants will not remain in his administration.
Screw you! What has Hillary said, except,
"I want to be PRESIDENT!
On DAY 1 I will do...." Gee, she never said what she would do on day one and no reporter has had the temerity to ask her. Kinda like Bush getting away with murder and war because no one really challenged him.
May 29, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And with a background in constitutional law, I would trust those feelings way more than the John Yoo's of the world.
Live Frankly
May 29, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He taught a Constitutional Law course as a lecturer. That is his "background". Which of the courses that Hillary taught as a Professor would you commend as uniquely qualifying her for governing? This may sound nitpicky, but there's a big difference between teaching a course on a subject and being a scholar in that area.
May 30, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of my fantasies is for Obama to appoint Morris Deese as Attorney General.
May 29, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great idea. Morris Dees is PERFECT. If not attorney general that chief of the Civil Right Commission.
May 29, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
That's amazing!
A Presidential candidate talks about overturning the rules, decisions, laws, etc of a previous administration from the opposite party.
How does Obama keep on coming up with these fresh, new ideas?
Could it be because he uses Mentos: The Freshmaker?
May 30, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
So reviewing constitutionality of power grabs is politics as usual now?
Let me explain what Obama would be doing: he would review the power grabs that his predecessors took, and give up any powers that he deems unconstitutional. When was the last president who willingly gave up powers?
May 30, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since Obama isn't President, he hasn't given up anything.
If you're referring to candidates, see October 2007: Clinton Plans to Consider Giving Up Some Powers.
May 30, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty stinking funny considering it was Bill Clinton who actually opened the door wide open expanding the scope of the "executive order". GWB just took incredible advantage of the precedent set. You really think Hillary is against executive orders? Considering she is right and everybody else is wrong? She knows best for all of us little minions?
To use Bill's phraseology - Give me a break!
May 30, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton expanded the scope of the executive order?
Executive Order 9066: President (Clinton?) Authorizes Japanese Relocation
Executive Order 10340: President (Clinton?) Seizes Steel Mills
Get back to me when you've figured out how Bill Clinton caused the Civil War.
May 30, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment