Summary: The article "Congressional Leaders concede changes should be made to 9/11 law Obama vetoed" discusses the recent decision made by Congress to override President Obama's veto. The 9/11 Victims law allows families affected by 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for any connections with the 9/11 terrorist attack. Just this Wednesday Congress voted overwhelmingly against Obama, with 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House, therefore passing the bill. However since then, Obama has responded saying he believes this was a political decision, and does not think the congress members have thought of all the possible consequences. There is now a letter being signed by Senators stating their concerns, and suggesting that they may possibly change parts of the law. If Congress wants to create some amendments to this newly passed law, they must act soon to protect the United States.
Connection: According to many senators, Obama did not share many of his concerns until after Congress had made their decision to override the veto. This is an issue regarding the executive branch's involvement in legislature. The executive branch is notoriously known for being uninvolved in Congress, creating many gaps between the two branches' ideas and hurting our government as a whole.
Questions: If Obama (or another member in the executive branch on his behalf) had spoken to Congress and shared his concerns before the votes to override his veto, would the outcome be different now?Should the executive branch be more involved with Congress overall?Will the 9/11 Victims Law have serious consequences on our country?
Connection: According to many senators, Obama did not share many of his concerns until after Congress had made their decision to override the veto. This is an issue regarding the executive branch's involvement in legislature. The executive branch is notoriously known for being uninvolved in Congress, creating many gaps between the two branches' ideas and hurting our government as a whole.
Questions: If Obama (or another member in the executive branch on his behalf) had spoken to Congress and shared his concerns before the votes to override his veto, would the outcome be different now?Should the executive branch be more involved with Congress overall?Will the 9/11 Victims Law have serious consequences on our country?
The executive branch should be more involved with Congress. The three branch system of government, that we have in the US, functions best when all the branches communicate. The branches don't have to agree on everything, as this is how balance of power is achieved, but the branches must be able to work together. One huge critique of the Obama administration over the past 8 years has been the lack of communication and work between the executive and legislative branch. This lack of communication can lead to major issues, evidenced by how many Congressmen (and women) are having remorse over voting for a presidential override. Although lack of communication is a problem it appears that no one in Washington wants to fix this issue. republicans prefer blaming Obama than actually going to the White House for meetings, and Obama is (probably) just trying to last a few more months. Hopefully this divide can be amended by our next president, although I believe that both candidates are too polarizing to actually get the opposing party (or even their own party) to listen to them.
ReplyDeleteThe 9/11 Victims Law will have serious consequences on our country. By allowing United States citizens to sue Saudi Arabia will only worsen are relations within the Middle East. This law will only support the stereotypes that the United States is a bully trying to promote their dominance in other countries. Furthermore, this could possibly lead to a larger influx of anti-Western fighters into groups such as ISIS. This could lead to a possible attack on the United States soldiers, embassies, or even the country itself.
ReplyDeleteThe key issue here is immunity. For example, Trump and Pence have criticized Hillary and Obama for removing all troops out of Iraq. However, the Iraqi government would not guarantee our troops immunity. Another example of immunity is that members of Congress are immune from being sued for the laws they create. Last, you're supposed to know the term "sovereign immunity," i.e. the 'king can do no harm.'
ReplyDeleteThe key issue here is immunity. For example, Trump and Pence have criticized Hillary and Obama for removing all troops out of Iraq. However, the Iraqi government would not guarantee our troops immunity. Another example of immunity is that members of Congress are immune from being sued for the laws they create. Last, you're supposed to know the term "sovereign immunity," i.e. the 'king can do no harm.'
ReplyDeleteEven if Obama or a member of the executive branch voiced their opposition to the permitting of law suits against Saudi Arabia, I do not think it would have changed the outcome. Obama's administration has not had a lot of success in cooperating with Congress and the damage has already been done, any attempt to reconcile now would be quickly shot down. That being said, a stronger executive branch with a more politically savvy presidents could've had more success.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dylan that not much could've been done even if Obama voiced his opinion, but Congress should've thought more about the consequences of their plans. Creating rules blindly is an example of the carelessness of Congress from their comfortable immunity from being sued
DeleteI agree with what Dylan and Ivan are saying, Obama is a member of the executive branch and nothing he could've said would've changed the outcome. Congress has had the Obama presidency under lock and causing little or nothing in the interest of Obama to get done. If Obama had stronger ties with members of Congress then maybe something could be done.
DeleteThe executive branch should be more involved with Congress. The recent gridlock has shown that when one branch doesn't cooperate with the others, nothing gets done. The only way to get out of this stalemate is to have one of the other branches of the government give Congress a shove in the right direction. That is the whole point of the three branch system. When one of them is acting out one or two of the others have to step in and intervene. The executive branch should never force its decisions on congress, that would defeat the purpose of a balance of power. However, they shouldn't be afraid to be assertive either. There has to be some sort of cooperation, otherwise absolutely nothing will move forward. Almost everyone from both parties can agree that gridlock isn't productive, but no one has taken the necessary steps to bridge the divide. I believe that the executive branch could be the push that manages to get congress moving again.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the executive branch should step up and take the initiative to help Congress break out of stalemate. Now, even with a republican majority in Congress, there will be significant backlash from the democratic senators who will likely try to force stalemate for the next two years. Regardless of how unlikely it is, I think trump should be the one to step up to try and help everyone see eye to eye within Congress and make sure stuff continues to get done within our government.
Delete