Ten Things No President May Do:

1. Create Any Law - Creating law is reserved to Congress by the Constitution
2. Overturn Any Law - Repealing laws is reserved to Congress. The Federal courts can declare a law to be unconstitutional.
3. Act in Violation of Any Law - A President is bound by the existing laws that have been passed by Congress and have not been repealed.
4. Spend Money in a Way Not Appropriated by Congress - See #1 & #2
5. Selectively Veto a Portion of a Bill - There is no provision for this kind of action.
6. Fire any Federal Judge, Congressperson, or Senator - That is outside of a President's authority.
7. Make any Binding Treaty with another Country - All treaties and similar agreements must be ratified by Congress.
8. Create or Change any Taxation - Again, all taxation or changes to taxation must be initiated by Congress.
9. Appoint any Cabinet Member or Judge - A President may only nominate people to such positions. They must be ratified.
10.Do anything Reserved to The States - A President may not interfere with issues not expressly enumerated in the Constitution.

The above list explains why President is unable to do many of the things some expect him to do. We have a weak executive in the United States, and that's by design.

Edit: Changed "Can" to "May" in title.

I'm afraid Obama is a follower, not a leader.

But there are things he CAN do and ISN'T DOING:

1. Withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq

2. Veto stupid Republican bills

3. Declare that he will veto any bill that contains/doesn't contain certain provisions and then STICK TO IT

4. Campaign for Congresscritters who support his policies and refuse to campaign for those who don't

5. Sell his policies to the American people and ask them to pressure their Congresscritters

6. Refuse to have closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists

7. Learn how to negotiate from strength instead of anticipating Republican objections and meeting them halfway without even being asked

And in the US, that opposition is in control of the media and unwilling to be reasoned with.

It took thirty years for the right-wing media machine to develop. Where were the Dems?

Even now, they don't use the media opportunities that they have very well.

Either they have the political will to go along with something or they don't. There is not one President that has been able to make Congress go along with everything he wanted. There is not one "leader" working under a Democratic/non-totalitarian process that has been able to make opposition bend to their every will.

You watch too much television.

I remember how unpopular LBJ's Civil Rights Bill was when he got it passed. I even remember how much opposition there was to Medicare. There were TV ads all over telling us that it wasn't necessary.

especially with republicans, and people called him the same things they have called Obama, socialist, dictator etc, etc.

You had a minority of loud voices in the Senate and Congress trying to prevent those things, but not one with enough power to prevent it. Its all math. The math does not support a lot of progressive legislation right now.

based on the unproven myth that certain parts of the country will accept only corporate shills. Actually, it's more like only corporate shills will get corporate money to run TV attack ads.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Obama and the other Dem establishment leaders CATER TO and APPROVE OF the Blue Dogs and browbeat the Progressives to their will consistently.

How about some candidates--even in supposedly "conservative" parts of the country--who dealt with the actual issues facing the people and did a lot of face-to-face campaigning?

Districts CAN be flipped over time.

All Presidents have failed sometimes to get their wishes accomplished.

n/t

giving $150,000 speeches.

But maybe Obama could have an attack of conscience and integrity and start doing these things instead of worrying about what people think of him.

Are you claiming there is a way for a President to convince people like Rand Paul to vote for liberal things?

I think you are suggesting corruption. Or truly don't understand that it is a GOOD thing to have checks on the Executive.

How is such a person going to get elected, if he/she exists? Mesmerizing everyone? Makes it sound like you'd prefer congress be made up of zombies.

But he could try convincing Max Baucus or the other Blue Dogs to act like the Democrats they purport to be.

It's those that never have who think he's doing a fantastic job. Don't get me wrong - he's better than the alternative, Republican leadership, but frankly, not by much.

Thanks!

#5: After YEARS of trying to pass the line-item veto, the GOP finally managed to do it. In an ironic twist, Clinton was the only president to use it before it was ruled to be unconstitutional.

#9: Cabinet Member: No. Judge: yes - as a recess appointment, EXCEPT when the GOP pulls the fuckhead bullshit they just did to "keep the Senate in session" while they go home and grill dead animal parts and inhale mass quantities of booze for the holiday weekend with no respect at all for the actual reason behind the holiday.

#10: Bush pulled some shit in his endless stream of signing statements that pushed the boundaries, if not crossing them, on this one.

All of that said, your point is good. You can't expect the president to wave a magic wand and fix the economy. The three-branch concept almost works well, and it is certainly better than what many countries have.

I appreciate your clarification.

:rofl:

taking a chance on starting a war with an ally...not weak at all claiming we can assassinate American citizens nor weak when he decided we needed to go to war with Lybia.

Dunno where your getting this weak stuff from...the EXEC has never had more power then right now and Obama is using it to the fullest extent he can get away with.

Either the Constitution allows such actions or laws allow them. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. He can order many things done in that role. Sometimes, they go against the wishes of others. Congress has the authority and Constitutional right to remove a sitting President. That authority is absolute. That they do not do so is acquiescence to a President's actions taken in his position as head of the Executive Branch.

falls all over itself to try and get brownie points with the POTUS...I understand what you are saying, but the CEO has powers far beyond what the Constitution intended.

There's only one arbiter, really: the SCOTUS. If Congress doesn't impeach and SCOTUS doesn't rule, then it stands. In that sense, the Constitution, vague document that it is sometimes, is still in effect. There are remedies. If they are not used, then there is consent. It's all pretty clearly laid out, really.

That is one of the strangest things to me; we vote on Congress and the POTUS but not the SCOTUS (which imo has the MOST power)! I know there is a reason, it just seems odd to me...we vote on county judges and distict judges on the bench.

Domestic is much more frustrating.

A President can get away with a lot and both parties in Congress don't want to do anything about it.

And, I'm afraid you'll have to document them. Few people understand the totality of the law. If you say a President has broken the law, you also have to present the law that was broken. A lot of things get said, but not documented properly. It is not enough to merely say that a law has been broken. The law needs to be presented, so that we can see for ourselves.

I'm not saying that Presidents haven't broken the law, but they may not do so. They can do so, but they may not do so.

Whether such violations have consequences depends on two things: Impeachment and Conviction. Those are the only recourse.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html

If you want to dispute this or say it wasn't Bush but someone under him that's fine. I believe Conyers documented a number of laws broken by Bush. I'm not interested in going back-and-forth on this so I'll let you have the last word. It's just my opinion that a President could get away with a lot these days.

Bush might not have actually directly violated that law, in that he did not actually commit any torture himself. In any case, he has not been charged with doing so in any court of law, nor did Congress impeach him for doing so. So the case has not been presented. Constitutionally, his innocence stands. In my opinion, however, he is guilty of torture. My opinion carries almost no weight, though.

And you're right. Presidents do get away with a lot, just like a child who takes a cookie after a parent said not to. The result depends on whether the parent knows that the child took the cookie and whether the parent imposes any punishment on the child. Again, I didn't say that President could not do a thing. I said that he "may" not do it legally. There's a distinction there.

veto a law; enter into secret agreements with other countries; withhold appropriations; not enforce laws; make recess appointments; do pretty much anything he damn well pleases in the name of national security or any war, declared or not.

Your list of limited presidential powers is like a shopping list for a banquet in Biafra. As The Decider remarked, the U.S. Constitution is "Just a piece of paper."

It seems pretty simple and clear. I made a list of things Presidents may not do and posted it as an OP on DU. I added a comment, which represented my opinion. A discussion on my post is happening, which is what I intended.

Do I need a different point? Do you wish to discuss anything I wrote? I'd welcome your participation in the discussion.

First, the error was pointed out to me.

Second, here's an example of the difference:

If I as a parent tell my child that he/she may not have a cookie ten minutes before dinnertime, then the child may not have the cookie.

If the child takes the cookie and eats it, it is clear that the child CAN have a cookie, even though it may not. It is then up to me to punish the child for breaking my rule. If I do not punish the child, then it wasn't actually a rule, but just a suggestion.

You wrote, "We have a weak executive in the United States, and that's by design."

While that is to an extent true, that design was weak relative to a King. When compared to executive authority in most parliamentary democracies, however, there is an almost universal tendency for independent executives that are also commanders in chief, to accumulate ever more power. The eventual outcome of the process historically has been the assumption of control of government by military interests.

While it isn't specific to your main point that Obama couldn't accomplish his agenda because he isn't a king, I felt it was worth mentioning just to make sure the "weak executive" comment wasn't misapplied.

Patriot Act anyone?

How about a war in Libya?

Good reply. Thanks.

I'm always glad to see that. It means that the post created a discussion. I like discussions.

For those who don't know what "On the Fence" is, click the Greatest star, then click "Top Tens."

That list is the only use of the rec/unrec feature that is meaningful to me.

refused to do so and evidently we cannot go back and ask 'why'.

pushed against any of the above ten items or even walked over them..