« Iraq Diary - 26 June 2014 | Main | Iraq and Syria diary - 27 June 2014 »

27 June 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



"... the Speaker of the House has publicly announced his intention to sue Obama for exceeding his legal authority in the same executive actions."

I think the Speaker should move on articles of impeachment rather than some lawsuit.


McAullife has ALWAYS been greasy as a can of sauerkraut. I hope they take him down. Slowly.



"Softly, softly, catchee monkey." pl



Both men are being fed a lot of rope. pl

cville reader

I could never figure out how someone with McAuliffe's history (re Clinton administration) became a gubernatorial candidate in Virginia. And I say that as a relatively recent transplant -- to some I am still a Yankee to be eyed with suspicion.

He is a carpetbagger.

I am also surprised that Staunton would have a liberal (compared to what?) newspaper.

Bill H

"Obama should be careful not push his campaign of executive actions beyond the limits of the law."

He already has. Quite a few times, and by a sizeable margin. Half a dozen times with his manipulations of the so-called ACA alone.

John Minnerath

Over reach by elected politicians who can'r get their way by regular legislative methods is nothing new.
It seems worse, but I think it's the SOS.
The electorate has been known to get fed up sweep the slate clean to start it all over again.

Old Gun Pilot

Well, that certainly worked out well for the Republican Party last time they tried it. I doubt that either the President or the National Democratic party is overly concerned with the prospect. In fact I can Imagine them thinking " Please Brer Fox, don't throw me into that briar patch."


cville reader

Compared to the rest of the Shenandoah Valley with the exception of Lexington which is rather liberal (for Virginia) because of the two colleges. pl



"... last time they tried it." When was that? pl

Old Gun Pilot

The impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1999. Clintons approval ratings actually went up significantly during and following the impeachment.



Clinton's ratings were unimportant bush was elected and they did pretty well in the congress as well. pl

nick b


Bush was only very narrowly 'elected'. Gore actually won the popular vote. Gore's loss was at least partially attributed to his distancing himself from Clinton during the campaign.

I agree with OGP. I think impeachment proceedings would do more to resuscitate Obama's Presidency than anything else could. I doubt Speaker Boehner would allow it to happen. Currently the Democrats suffer from a deep enthusiasm deficit going into the mid term elections. Impeachment proceedings would only serve to fire up the Democratic base and increase Obama's popularity. Without a guaranteed two thirds majority for conviction in the Senate, which seems unlikely, it would ultimately be an empty gesture. The Republicans can achieve their goals with out it.


Old Gun Pilot,

True, but this time there is an constitutional rationale releated to acts in office, rather than the bedroom, for taking this route. I don't think the Democratic party will get far with claiming victimhood over unconstitutional recess appointments.

Old Gun Pilot

They did win the Presidential election(but lost the popular vote) In the Congress-not so well. they lost seats in the House (which was unusual in a Presidential election year) but managed to keep a small majority. In the Senate they lost a net 5 seats in the election and an additional seat the following June when Senator Jeffords switched sides giving the Dems control.



I don't think I suggested that impeachment proceedings would occur. IMO what is likely is diminution of the image of the Democratic Party as safeguards of constitutional government. pl


He was always a bag man. Period. And bag men think they can worm/pay their way into anything and out of anything. He is the 'Snopes' money man. One of them.

Edward Amame

Some historical perspective on executive actions.

In 2008, The House Armed Services Committee released a report stating that 78% of George W Bush’s signing statements challenged provisions of the law.

Here's a quick rundown on the practice via Todd Garvey in his 2012 book, Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications:

"...While the history of presidential issuance of signing statements dates to the early 19th century, the practice has become the source of significant controversy in the modern era as Presidents have increasingly employed the statements to assert constitutional and legal objections to congressional enactments. President Reagan initiated this practice in earnest, transforming the signing statement into a mechanism for the assertion of presidential authority and intent. President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 161 signing statements, 127 of which (79%) contain some type of challenge or objection. The significant rise in the proportion of constitutional objections made by President George W. Bush was compounded by the fact that his statements were typified by multiple objections, resulting in more than 1,000 challenges to distinct provisions of law. Although President Barack Obama has continued to use presidential signing statements, the Obama Administration has used the interpretive tools with less frequency than previous administrations—issuing 20 signing statements, of which 10 (50%) contain constitutional challenges to an enacted statutory provision..."


I would prefer Obama be impeached over his violations of constitutional due process, his failure in his duty to uphold criminal financial statutes, and his violations of the fourth amendment

I consider his use of recess appointments to pale by comparison.

Of course, the name "Bush" could just as appropriately be substituted above.

But none of those constitutional violations will ever see an impeachment vote simply because those violations are bipartisan and endorsed by the powers that be.


Criminal financial? Hell, talk about his failure in upholding criminal immigration statutes!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad