Executive Power

When people think about the U.S. President, they tend to think about an all-powerful leader who has no limitations or bounds. People tend to forget that this is still a democracy, not a dictatorship, there for the President does not have the power to do anything and everything he pleases, whenever he wants. In all reality, yes, the President has a surplus amount of power but he also has a long list of limitations to that very power. 

The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He or she has the power to call into service the state units of the National Guard, and in times of emergency may be given the power by Congress to manage national security or the economy. He has the power to make treaties with Senate approval. He can also receive ambassadors and work with leaders of other nations. He is responsible for nominating the heads of governmental departments, which the Senate must then approve. In addition, the president nominates judges to federal courts and justices to the United States Supreme Court.

The President can also issue executive orders (which this post will be focusing on), that have the effect of law but do not have to be approved by congress. He can issue pardons for federal offenses, convene Congress for special sessions and veto legislation approved by Congress. However, the veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote by Congress

For the most part, that about summarizes the President's executive power. Now as to why I am addressing all this, President Barack Obama will be announcing as early as next week executive actions to overhaul the U.S. immigration system. He said he had decided to take these measures after an immigration revamp passed by the Senate died this year in the Republican-controlled House. His plans to act alone have infuriated newly empowered Republicans who believe they have earned a chance at the polls to write their own immigration laws.

Although, the President’s timing may be questionable, he does have complete rights to this executive order, even if it is just for votes in the next election.

“My executive actions not only do not prevent them from passing a law that supersedes those actions,” he said at a news conference on Nov. 5, “but they should be a spur for them to actually try to get something done.”

And with that statement, I believe he made great point, his actions don’t ensure that what he WANTS is going to happen, but that at least something will happen!

A Breath of Fresh Rationalism

After almost every circuit court in the country had ruled in favor for same-sex marriage, the 6th Circuit threw the headlines a curveball. Headed up by Judge Jefferey S. Sutton, the court ruled against same-sex marriages thanks to Judge Suttons eloquent and enlightening argument.

I can personally say after hearing the same arguments again and again, for and against same-sex marriage,  the topic was getting quite old. Judge Sutton, thank God, has offered a new argument to the table, one that I actually appreciate does not base its self off religion --not because I am not religious or because I believe it's not a religious matter, but because now, those who are not religious have no excuses to disregard the argument. When presented the "God says same-sex marriage is wrong, therefore it is" argument, anyone who does not believe in God can easily say that what He has said is irrelevant.

Judge Sutton's argument is refreshingly based off of the Constitution and basic rationalism. Even though Judge Sutton knew that the U S. Supreme Court appears to be determined to legalize same-sex marriage, his responsibility was to decide the cases in light of the U S. Constitution and the rule of law. His argument clearly mirrored that decision. Judge Sutton ruled that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly did not see that language as requiring states to legalize same-sex marriage. 

I must be honest, to completely understand that statement I needed to further understand the  Fourteenth Ammendment. It states that citizens are to be given "full and equal benefit of all laws." Aftert clarifying that I believe that Sutton was attempting to remind his listeners that the framers of our Amendments did not intend the fourteenth to be intrerpreted as the advocates for same-sex marriage have done.

Then came his argument which  incased one of the most important sentences written by any judge in recent times: “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States.”

 

Brilliance, absolute brilliance! How can people say that the view of marriage being only between a man and a women as "unconstitutionally irrational" when that very veiw was recently believed by every society, all over the world, unchallenged for centuries. Do you really think, after all these years,  that the whole time our ancestors were doing it completely wrong? In my opinion, our ancestors are the ones who had it right. 

Overall, bravo to Sutton! 

President Obama's Speech: An insult to Stay-at-Home Moms?

My first reaction when I saw article titles with Obama’s name in them was, “Oh gosh, what now?” The first article I read was off of The Federalist, titled: “Three Reasons President Obama is Wrong about Stay-At-Home Mothers.” After reading just the title alone I thought he really did himself in this time! Coming from a home of four girls, all close in age, which my mother became a stay-at-home mom to take care of, I know that if there is anything you can say to aggravate a bunch of moms, it’s insulting their choice to become stay-at-home moms!

I moved on to read the article, remind you, still before listening to President Obama’s speech to which this article was commenting on, and there it was, the quote that had this article writer and others so irked:

            “Sometimes, someone, usually Mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids,      which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result,” he said. “That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”

My very first response was: “Oh, maybe he just meant that he didn’t want moms to HAVE to make the choice to leave their jobs.” I continued to read the response to this quote and thought that there had to be more than this statement to make this writer feel the need to defend the entire principle of stay-at-home moms!

I decided to read the actual speech before reading any more articles (admittedly what I should have started with, oops!) I read and read, anxiously waiting from Obama to drop the insulting stay-at-home mom bomb, but he never did! In my opinion, forgive me if I’m wrong, but the article from The Federalist had completely missed the point of the president’s speech! He wasn’t discouraging the choice of moms staying home at all! He clearly stated his purpose here:

            “In particular, I want to zero in on the choices we need to make to ensure that women are             full and equal participants in the economy.”

He was actually defending women’s roles in the economy. Something most women are continually fighting for in the work force. A principle that my own mother repeatedly minded me of with stories from her experiences as an ambitious woman in a business world dominated and controlled by men. President Obama was also recognizing the struggle women have to be successful in the work force while also raising children, and commonly taking time off to do so. My first response to the quote from The Federalist was correct; Obama wasn’t saying women shouldn’t choose to stay at home, but that they shouldn’t have to choose if they don’t want to! Anyone who heard or read the speech should have easily understood that. The president even went as far as to use his own mother to explain the societal problem he was addressing:

            “I was raised by a single mom, and know what it was like for her to raise two kids and go to work at the same time, and try to piece things together without a lot of support. And my grandmother, who never graduated from college but worked her way up to become vice president of a bank, I know what it was like for her to hit the glass ceiling, and to see herself passed over for promotions by people that she had trained.  And so some of this is personal, but some of it is also what we know about our economy, which is it’s changing in profound ways, and in many ways for the better because of the participation of women more fully in our economy.”

After reading this I sincerely do not understand how stay-at-home mothers could have felt insulted. Obama clearly understands the importance of stay-at-home mothers which is exactly why he is trying to make it easier for women to take paid-leaves from work in order to take care of their children.