This topic was inspired by my sister resister Karen.
Some TЯUMP supporters, when confronted with a misdeed by their supreme leader, like to say, "Yeah but whatabout Obama?!"
The specific issue inspiring this post was a comment from Karen about the Angry Creamsicle's capricious use of power to declare a a national emergency to divert military funds for the building of his GDW (goddam wall), and the Senate's rebuke of the same. She said that "his base doesn't understand there is a constitution for a reason." A responding comment was, "the Dems don't seem to understand it either! They also didn't seem to mind when the former President went beyond his power."
I am sure you have heard plenty of other similar comments. SCROTUS himself likes to falsely compare his actions to Obama's (subject of a future post!).
Firstly, I want to remind my readers that false comparison or false equivalence is a logical fallacy. It is a tactic used a lot by the right, I've noticed, and is also a propaganda tactic. I discussed propaganda in my recent post about FAUX News and linked to an excellent analysis of their propaganda tactics.
Armed with this knowledge, you know that whenever someone (on the right or on the left) uses a "whataboutist" argument, analyze it carefully, and if a false comparison, you should steer clear. Point out it's a false equivalence, and move to a more productive discussion. And please, if I present a false comparison in my arguments here, or other faulty argument, point it out to me. I know I have bias, and I'm passionate about my views, but I try to present facts and use logic. Call me on it if I don't. (And please, conservatives, if all you can rail about in my posts in my use of offensive silly names for your Lord God Lovey, just save it, and maybe read on.)
.
But for the sake of argument, let's look at executive overreach. Perhaps the comparison is not as false as it seems.
There are two types of "executive overreach" strategies, actions that bypass Congress for the implementation of the president's agenda: executive orders and national emergency declarations. They are two different beasts.
In terms of Genghis Can't's national emergency declaration, we can't compare it to executive orders. That's comparing apples to oranges (aka a false equivalence). So let's compare apples to apples.
Executive orders. Executive orders aren't great. They blatantly go around the legislative branch. The president is not to be making law. He is to be executing the law. But presidents since George Washington have been signing executive orders to get their policies enacted. Obama wasn't unique. 45 isn't unique.
It's true that Obama signed a lot of executive orders. He signed 276 of them. The priority of the Republicans in Congress during Obama's years was to simply block Obama, and I suppose he felt the need to use this power to push his agenda. But with 276 executive orders, he doesn't hold the record for executive orders (FDR holds that record for 3,734 in his 12 years). It's not even a record for modern presidents.
Obama signed 276 executive orders during his eight years. So far, SCROTUS has signed 101. At this point in Obama's presidency, he had signed 80 executive orders to SCROTUS's 101. But we should look at the other modern presidents. George II signed 291 in his eight years; Clinton signed 364 in his eight years; and George I signed 166 during his 4-year term -- nearly on par with his successor Clinton, and far more per year than Obama.
So let's give that a rest. They all do it, for better or for worse. I agree, executive orders aren't the best way to enact law. We hired Congress to do that job, and we should let them do it. Here's more about the history of executive orders.
Now, the oranges. How do our modern presidents stack up in their national emergencies?
If you look at the list of national emergencies declared, they are almost all have to do with sanctions or esoteric trade issues. Most of them involve foreign policy. And none divert funds. SCROTUS's military executive order diverting funds from the pentagon is the only military national emergency since Bush readied troops and military appropriations in response to 9/11, and the only one to divert funds that were previously earmarked by Congress.
SCROTUS's national emergency truly was unprecedented, and it was plainly unconstitutional. THAT is what makes it egregious (that, and the fact that there is no emergency). Plain and simple, Congress has the power of the purse. It is clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause). There has never been a national emergency, nor an executive order, that redirects funds from one program to another for a pet project. And that's because the Executive branch does not have the power to spend money. Period.
 |
| Mike Thompson/USA Today |
The reason why TЯUMP's national emergency is wrong is because it is ILLEGAL.
Don't be comparing this action with Obama's national emergency of "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Executive Order 13536) – intended to help combat Somali pirates" or "Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic (Proclamation 8443) – empowered the secretary of Health and Human Services to issue waivers allowing overcrowded hospitals to move swine flu patients to satellite facilities or other hospitals" or any other of our former presidents' emergency declarations.
Think about issues on their own and for their own merits. Let the Constitution guide us!
(And RESIST!)
“The point of protesting about 'moral equivalence' is surely not to blur moral choices on ‘our side’. Is it?” ― Christopher Hitchens
No comments:
Post a Comment