Obama may act to tighten Internet security

[No Elephants]

Obama may act to tighten Internet security


Published: Aug. 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama may use his executive authority to force cybersecurity measures on the Internet, the president's cybersecurity chief says.

White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan said many of the measures would be in line with legislation rejected in the U.S. Senate last year, The Hill reported.

<snip>


The cybersecurity bill, sponsored by U.S. Sens. Joe Lieberman, Ind-Conn. and Susan Collins, R-Maine, would have protected the nation's electrical grid, financial networks, transportation system and other vital infrastructure.

The legislation fell eight votes short of support after it drew opposition from both sides of the political fence. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed it would unfairly restrict private companies while civil liberties and open government groups said the proposal gave too much power over commercial cyber networks to the government.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/09/Obama-may-act-to-tighten-Internet-security/UPI-67491344521687/#ixzz233nAj6s5

I love the way this article assumes that the President has the authority to enact legislation in the White House all by his lonesome that the United States Senate has already rejected.

The Constitution does not even mention executive orders.

To the contrary, the Constitution says only Congress legislates. The Executive only has the power to administer and enforce the laws Congress enacts. Bad enough that rule making power by administrative agencies has become like legislat But, no one should ever just assume

[woo me with science]

1. Wow, I missed this.

Thank you.

[No Elephants]

3. You're welcome!

Again, very happy to see you.

Hope you have been well.

[sabrina 1]

2. Anything sponsored by Joe Lieberman should be considered

an attack on the American people at this point.

I saw an interview with him recently where he was asked who he would be supporting in the election for president. He said he had not decided yet.

In the last election, he supported McCain/Palin. He has slapped Democrats in the face publicly, repeatedly, yet they continue to treat him as if were important for some reason.

On the good side, traitors eventually end up being trusted by no one. I also read recently that he has not been invited to either the Democratic or the Republican Conventions. You just can't trust a turncoat no matter which side he claims to be on. But the Repubs sure used him to rub in Democratic faces.

I sincerely hope that this story is not true. And if it is and the president does use an EO to over ride Congress, then I want to hear from the people who argued that he could not use an EO to allow Gays in the Military.

[No Elephants]

4. It's Complicated.

I agree with you 100% on the bottom line, but offer this analysis in case you get challenged on the ground that DADT was different.

DADT indeed was a little different, both in a way favorable to Obama and in a way unfavorable to Obama.

I agree with the many DADT repeal commentators who said that Obama could have used an EO to end DADT, just as Reagan had used an EO to ban gays from the military.

However, as you know, DADT was, thanks to Bubba, a fully-enacted law of Congress, signed by the POTUS, saying that gays could be in the military. And, supposedly, custom dictated that while Congress and the CIC could both "legislate" as to the military, neither one would overrule the other. So, if Congress had never spoken about DADT (thanks to Bubba0, it would have been okay for Obama to overrule Reagan, but it was not okay for Obama to purport to ovrrule a law of Congress.

However, that alleged "tradition" was by no means an ironclad rule, but something erroneously dredged up as fact when convenient for Congress or the POTUS or both. (No accident that DADT did not get repealed before mid-terms.)

There had been exceptions to it in the past. Indeed, to state the obvious, DADT itself was a law of Congress overruling Reagan's Excutive Order.

To state the obvious again, neither Bubba nor Obama wanted to take the full political hit for creating full equal rights in the military, thereby finishing the work Harry Truman's EO started, and that is the reason each of Bubba and Obama proceeded as he did.

In this case, however, the bill never made it out of the Senate. While that is very significant to my mind, it is not the same as having an existing law on the books, as DADT was.

Having said all that, the big BUT is: The Constitution arguably gives the POTUS, as CIC, a lot of power to "legislate' as to the military under his or her command. It does not, however, give the POTUS any similar power, even a little, to legislate in any other sphere, like the internet.

When it comes to making law, both EOS and signing statements that attempt to modify or nullify the law being signed--a practice toward which Clinton took a tenative step and Dummya fully indulged in-- are unconstitutional abuses of both those measures. (Yes, there were many signing statements before Dummya, but that is a very deceptive half truth.

None of the older signing statements attempted to modify or nullify or decline enforcement of any law passed by Congress. The closest it got was "I hate this law!", but that wass only an expression of the opinion of that POTUS, not an attempt to "amend" or render useless.)

Anyhoo, AFAIK, Obama misused the signing statement only once in four years. Still, when the only precedent you can point to since 1789 is Dummya, you may want to check yourself, and you ran on change....

Speaking of which, I wonder what happened to that lawsuit some members of Congress began over Obama's failure to get Congressional war power authority for Libya. And there is that pesky "Executive execution decision = due process" thing, which is way too "L'etat Due Prosess Clause c'est moi for me.

[sabrina 1]

5. Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I did see the argument that an EO would not make it permanent and could be overruled by a Republican in two or four years while getting Congress to make it a law was a much more permanent solution.

My argument was, when it seemed that it was never going to happen, or not happen until after the election, was that an EO, which I had researched re the President's authority as CIC and found, as you pointed out, that he did have that authority, but my argument was 'do it now and continue to work on getting Congress to pass it NOW before the election while they still had a majority.

Actually I never understood why this was not done as soon as Dems took over in Jan 2009. The public was not opposed to it so it made no sense to me.

But later I began to realize that it was deliberately being kept off the table until after the election, to use as a peace offering to the base of the party after extending the Bush Tax Cuts. I believe a deal was made with Republicans to hold those issues until after the election and they, Repubs, would let it pass to help temper the expected anger at Obama for caving on the Bush Tax cuts.

The bottom line though is, he could have used the EO legally but I know why he did not. It was the bargaining chip Repubs wanted to use to get his support for the Bush Tax Cuts.

[No Elephants]

6. You're more than welcome. And thank you for the same.

I did see the argument that an EO would not make it permanent and could be overruled by a Republican in two or four years while getting Congress to make it a law was a much more permanent solution.

I did not see that argument at all because laws enacted by Congress can be repealed later by Congress just as the same President or a different President can overrule an EO. Didn't Congress enact DADT, then repeal it a few years later? And doesn't Truman's EO desegregating the military stand unrepealed to this day?

Sure, it's somewhat harder to change control of Congress than it is to change control of the WH--though control of Congress changes a lot more frequently now than it did after FDR--but there are also certain political realities. It is one thing to attempt to block something by parading generals in front of Congress to say it needs more study, but repealing something after the fact--after it has gone smoothly for two or three years, is entirely a different matter.

Even if a segregationist, er, I mean a "states rights" President had gotten into office after Truman, would he or she dare repeal the desegregation EO? I very much doubt it.

I very much doubt a Republican President would have repealed any other equal rights EO for the military that they praise so much. I don't know if they could even get the generals to testify about that, given how desperate the volunteer army was for bodies when Obama took office. (The bright side of drone murders is that they require fewer troops than invading country after country.)And there are many gay Republicans, too, including those who were challenging DADT in the courts--challenges the D of J fought every step to the bitter end, btw.

Actually I never understood why this was not done as soon as Dems took over in Jan 2009. The public was not opposed to it so it made no sense to meBut later I began to realize that it was deliberately being kept off the table until after the election, to use as a peace offering to the base of the party after extending the Bush Tax Cuts. I believe a deal was made with Republicans to hold those issues until after the election and they, Repubs, would let it pass to help temper the expected anger at Obama for caving on the Bush Tax cuts.

Maybe, but I think Republicans would have had a hard time denying equal rights to the military. It is an indefensible position, to say that America will eagerly allow gays to become maimed or dead, but will not allow them to tell the truth. I think they waited until after midterms because Democrats in Congress who had to run for re-election in red and purple states feared it might hurt them more in an off year than in a Presidential election year. And, indeed, they were very vulnerable in 2010, in part because it was an off year but, IMO, also in part because they had not produced from 2006 (also an off year) through 2010 what voters expected them to produce.

I think Obama extended the tax cuts because Geithner told him he would make the economy worse if he didn't extend them and Obama believed him. I think he waited until after midterms to extend them so it would like he had to bargain with the Republicans for them.

If he did make a deal with Republicans and expected them to keep it once he had fully performed his end, he is far more reckless than I ever imagined him to be.

But, as we are both guessing, your guess is as good or better than mine. Probably better, as it is more devious. I put much stock in the widespread application of the Occam's razor theory. It may have a place in some things, like making a medical diagnosis. Not so much when it comes comes to politicians trying to balance holding on to a Democratic base with their perceived need to be Republican for the indies in the purple states.

And, I had heard/read that Obama finished evolving his position on gay marriage when he did because gay fundraisers and bundlers were balking this time around. They had felt betrayed by Clinton and Obama and were refusing to go forward a fourth time on faith. Or, so I heard/read.