Mediaboss Marketing

House Republicans say President Obama has been derelict in enforcing key laws and are looking pass bills to hold him accountable. But the issue hardly began with Obama.

House Republicans claim President Obama is not doing enough to enforce the laws Congress has passed, and today and tomorrow, they intend to do something about it.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

On Wednesday, they passed a bill that gives each chamber of Congress standing to sue the White House over failure to enforce federal laws, with five Democrats joining all Republicans in a 233-to-181 vote. On Thursday, they will take up a bill that would require the Justice Department to inform Congress when the White House is not going to enforce a particular law, and to explain why.

As a practical matter, the bills will never become law. Neither will get past the Democrat-controlled Senate. But they involve a serious claim against a president: that the person constitutionally charged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed is, by implication, a lawbreaker. It is also a congressional complaint not unique to this president and begs the questions: Well, is he an enforcement slacker compared with other presidents?

The complaint against Mr. Obama involves Congress and their belief in the sacrosanct nature of the law, and the president saying theres a lot of latitude that he has a right to exercise, says Ross Baker, a congressional expert at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J.

The most often raised criticisms about Obama and the law are:

Obama rejected DOMA, which disadvantaged homosexual unions, on constitutional grounds. His administration followed the proper procedure by notifying Congress of its constitutional objection. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled the key provision of the act unconstitutional in 2013.

The implementation of Obamacare and drug laws may be vexing and cause confusion, but, says Louis Fisher, an expert on the separation of powers, the idea that a statute can actually control every part of implementation is very unrealistic. Statutes are pretty general.

Read the original post:

Can House Republicans make Obama enforce laws? (+video)

WASHINGTON The next U.S. presidential election is still more than two years away but for the first time in decades there appears to be no clear frontrunner for the Republican Partys presidential nomination in 2016. So whats happened? A free-for-all has developed among a younger generation of Republicans who see themselves as serious presidential contenders and who are now beating the bushes in hopes of building grassroots support. This phenomenon was on full display during the recent CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) near Washington when one Republican hopeful after another took to the stage an in effort to raise their profile for a possible presidential bid two years from now. For the second year in a row, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul emerged as a favorite of the conservative group, winning 31 percent support in a presidential test vote in a field that included numerous potential contenders for the 2012 Republican nomination. Texas Senator Ted Cruz was a distant second at 11 percent. Paul presents a bit of a different profile for a serious Republican presidential contender. His strong libertarian bent makes him a fierce critic of President Barack Obama on the NSA spying scandal and he brought the CPAC crowd to its feet by pledging to re-emphasize constitutional principles. We will challenge you in the courts. We will battle you at the ballot box. Mr. President, we will not let you shred our Constitution! Paul has also kicked off a debate within the Republican Party on the use of U.S. military force abroad. After more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Paul favors a much more limited military role abroad, reflecting a bipartisan consensus in numerous recent public opinion polls that Americans would prefer to pull back a bit from potential military confrontations overseas. Some take issue with this approach including a likely presidential rival in 2016, Senator Cruz of Texas. Cruz argues that the U.S. still has a pivotal role to play in world events, though he prefers to strike a middle ground between Pauls hesitancy to use military force and Senator John McCain of Arizona, one of the Senates leading internationalists who favors a more muscular U.S. foreign policy. Cruz was also a leading catalyst for last years government shutdown, which backfired for congressional Republicans. But Cruz enjoys intense support from some Tea Party elements and likes to rouse supporters with references to former President Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of Republicans who believe it is possible to elect a true conservative to the White House. Cruz told CPAC, People are hurting, tragically, and we need to turn this country around. We did it in 1980 with a grass roots movement that became the Reagan Revolution, and let me tell you, the same thing is happening all over today. The Republican Split The CPAC conference also showed that the split between establishment Republicans and Tea Party activists is alive and well. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has become a staple at the CPAC gatherings and she took the opportunity to lash out at what she called Beltway Republicans who seem on a mission to trim the influence of the Tea Party within the Republican Party. Palin noted the Republican success in the 2010 midterm elections was due in large part to Tea Party activists and she warned party leaders not to take them for granted during this years midterm campaign. You know that 2010 election victory that swept you into power? You didnt build that. The Tea Party did! This split within the Republican Party will have an impact not only on this years elections, but on the 2016 nomination battle when the party goes about the lengthy process of choosing a presidential nominee through a series of state primary and caucus votes as well as numerous candidate debates. Carroll Doherty is Director for Political Research at the Pew Research Center for the People and Press. He predicts a fair bit of Republican infighting for the next couple of years. The Republican Party is going through a lot of turmoil and a bit of division. They are struggling to find their way a bit as parties out of power are often in this position. Democrats have been in this position in the past. Some Republicans try to downplay the discord within their own party. Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan was the partys vice presidential candidate in 2012 and is considering a presidential run of his own in 2016. He told CPAC attendees not to believe all the hype about a divided Republican Party. Its Tea Party versus establishment, libertarians versus social conservatives. There is infighting, conflict, backbiting, discord. Look, Im Irish. Thats my idea of a family reunion. But analyst Carroll Doherty says the internal rift within the Republican Party sets the stage for what he says will be the most fascinating battle in decades for the partys presidential nomination in 2016. I really think it is going to be interesting. There is no heir to the throne, as it were, as there often is in Republican races and it is a wide open race. The presidential primary field could be quite large in 2016. In addition to Paul and Cruz, Republicans thought to be considering a run include Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Texas Governor Rick Perry and possibly former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Part of the reason the field is likely to be large is because there is no clear frontrunner for the party nomination, as has been the case in years past. The old saying is, Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. The Republican nomination tends to go to the person who finished second in the previous election cycle. Ronald Reagan lost out on a tough bid against President Gerald Ford in the 1976 campaign but won the nomination and the presidency in 1980. George W. Bush was the consensus pick of the Republican establishment leading up to the 2000 race. The Republican who finished second that year, Senator John McCain, became the favorite in the 2008 nomination fight and he won. Mitt Romney was considered the favorite in 2012 and he eventually won the nomination. For 2012, though, there is no clear favorite and that has whetted the appetite of an ambitious younger generation of Republicans eager for the reins of power. By the way, the part about how Democrats fall in love is a reference to the fact that often little-known candidates emerge from relative obscurity to win the party nomination. Jimmy Carter was a relatively unknown former Georgia governor before he began his quest for the Democratic Partys presidential nomination in 1976. Bill Clinton had a relatively low national profile when he embarked on his presidential quest in 1992. And then there is the case of Barack Obama, who was an obscure state senator from Illinois before John Kerry chose him to deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. 2016 looks like a different year for Democrats as they consider their presidential options. At the moment there is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton way at the top of the list, and everyone else well behind. Polls show Clinton is a strong favorite for the nomination among Democrats and supporters are impatiently waiting for a go signal from the former senator and first lady, which they expect either late this year or early next, assuming she decides to run.

The rest is here:

Republicans Search for the Next Reagan

The Progressive Party was a factor in the presidential campaigns of three men Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, and Henry Wallace. There were a few Progressive Party organizations spanning this period of time but after the 1952 elections, they disappeared entirely.

Its first incarnation came in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt led progressive elements out of the Republican Party. Roosevelt had made no secret of his low opinion of President William H. Taft and felt he could not support the ticket. Taft had particularly angered Roosevelt, an ardent conservationist, by removing Gifford Pinchot as chief forester.

Roosevelt struck out on his own and formed the first Progressive Party, saying he was as fit as a bull moose, from which came the colloquial name "Bull Moose Party." His platform called for tariff reform, stricter regulation of industrial combinations, womens suffrage, prohibition of child labor, and other reforms.

The new party nominated Roosevelt for president and Hiram Johnson for vice president. Although the Progressives finished well ahead of Republicans in the election, they lost to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. When Roosevelt returned to the Republican fold in 1916, the Progressive Party vanished for a time.

In 1924, liberals were so frustrated with conservative control of both major political parties that they formed the League of Progressive Political Action, better known as the Progressive Party. Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, a Republican, decided to run for president as an independent, but later accepted the nomination from the Progressive Party. Senator Burton K. Wheeler, a Democrat from Montana, was nominated for vice-president.

The party advocated government ownership of public utilities and such labor reforms as collective bargaining. It also supported farm-relief measures, lower taxes for persons with moderate incomes, and other such laws. Although La Follette received 17 percent of the popular vote, he only carried Wisconsins electoral vote.

In 1934, La Follettes sons organized a progressive party in Wisconsin. Robert La Follette, Jr. was elected to the Senate but was beaten in 1946 by Joseph McCarthy.

Yet another progressive party was formed in 1948. Former New Deal Democrats had become dissatisfied with the policies of Harry Truman and wanted their own party. They nominated Henry A. Wallace for president and Glen H. Taylor for vice president. They advocated liberal policies that included rights for minorities, curbs on monopolies, and the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act.

Continued here:

Progressive Party - U.S. History

The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project is a university-chartered research center associated with the Department of History of The George Washington University

Progressivism is the term applied to a variety of responses to the economic and social problems rapid industrialization introduced to America. Progressivism began as a social movement and grew into a political movement. The early progressives rejected Social Darwinism. In other words, they were people who believed that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated, and believed that government could be a tool for change. Social reformers, like Jane Addams, and journalists, like Jacob Riis and Ida Tarbel, were powerful voices for progressivism. They concentrated on exposing the evils of corporate greed, combating fear of immigrants, and urging Americans to think hard about what democracy meant. Other local leaders encouraged Americans to register to vote, fight political corruption, and let the voting public decide how issues should best be addressed (the initiative, the referendum, and the recall). On a national level, progressivism gained a strong voice in the White House when Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901. TR believed that strong corporations were good for America, but he also believed that corporate behavior must be watched to ensure that corporate greed did not get out of hand (trust-busting and federal regulation of business). Progressivism ended with World War I when the horrors of war exposed people's cruelty and many Americans associated President Woodrow Wilson's use of progressive language ("the war to make the world safe for democracy") with the war.

For more information on progressivism see the following web sites:

Continued here:

The Progressive Era (1890 - 1920) - The George Washington ...

Radical Islamisation threatens progressive family legislation and the elimination of women's freedom to make their own choices, writes LIZ PAYNE

There was one place where the usually joyous International Women's Day celebrations took place under a menacing shadow. Many women came to the streets cloaked head to toe in black, as if in mourning.

This was Baghdad on Saturday March 8 this year.

The following day in London, a woman who had been there on the streets talked almost in disbelief about the draft law approved by the Iraqi cabinet two weeks ago and now with parliament for approval.

The new family legislation enshrined in the so called Ja'afari Personal Status Law (after a Shi'ite imam) and put forward by the Islamic Shia Al-Fadhila Party will, if approved, turn the clock back for Iraqi women and girls by not just decades but centuries.

Its contents, say some commentators, will impose an Iranian-style theocracy and campaigners have dubbed it "a crime against humanity."

It will invest jurisdiction over family matters with the Shi'ite Islamic establishment, which will hear cases brought under this legislation in religious tribunals presided over by an Islamic judge.

It will completely eradicate the current hard-won secular code - dating from 1959 - which enshrines women's rights in marriage, child custody and inheritance law and which has been regarded as the most progressive in the Middle East.

Under the provisions of the new law men will exercise medieval control over women, with jurisdiction over every aspect of their lives.

Men will have the right to sex with their wives whenever they want it, giving them carte blanche to assault and rape with impunity.

See the article here:

Morning Star :: Progressives mount resistance to new law