# data[].attributes.body
1) The president has the power to issue executive orders.
2) The power to issue these orders, the ordinance powers arises from two sources: the constitution and acts of Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Quick Answer

In most democracies, the president is given authority which is known as ordinance power, which describes the president's authority to issue executive orders. These orders are usually given in a bid to help other members of government carry out their duties in a more effective manner, since they have been given the authority to do so by the head of state.
Continue Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In most democracies, the president is given authority which is known as ordinance power, which describes the president's authority to issue executive orders. These orders are usually given in a bid to help other members of government carry out their duties in a more effective manner, since they have been given the authority to do so by the head of state.

# data[].attributes.headline
Power to execute spending on behalf of congress

# data[].attributes.subject
Power to execute spending on behalf of congress

# data[].attributes.body
1) A line-item veto measure would allow the president to reject specific dollar amounts in spending bills enacted by congress.
2) In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act; however, it was struck down by the supreme court in 1998.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OK. Enough. It's time to quit being balanced or non-partisan or whatever other euphemism the elite establishment media uses to justify ignoring the two biggest elephants in our national living room.

After Trump was elected there was a lot of concern about allowing his idiocy to become the "new normal." But in truth, we've been accepting an unacceptable level of insanity in our national body politic for decades now.

Elephant number one is the fact that the Republican Party has come unhinged and it's dragging us back to the Dark Ages.

Literally. To be a Republican today you have to have complete disdain for facts, reality, empiricism, the scientific method, or any of the other underpinnings of the Enlightenment. This isn't merely a difference between two legitimate philosophies as the press insists on portraying it; rather, it is a self-limiting time bomb that is destroying any hope of a prosperous economy or a functioning society, not to mention our country's standing in the world and the habitability of our planet.

The evidence is overwhelming. For starters, there's the insane denial of climate change when records are dropping like stones.

February 2016 was an astounding 1.35 C (2.43 F) warmer than the average temperature for February based on the period from 1951 to 1980. That smashed the previous record for a monthly temperature increase by .21 C, another record. Oh, and that previous monthly record? It was set in January. February's 1.35 C increase was dangerously close to the 1.5 C increase that most scientists agree is as high as we can go without incurring serious and irreversible consequences.

Meanwhile, 16 of the hottest 17 years on record have occurred since 2000. The last three decades have also set records for the warmest decade on record, and this decade is on track to exceed them.

Or consider that the National Snow and Ice Data center announced that in 2016 and 2015 the Arctic sea ice maximum set a record for the lowest it's been since records have been kept, both breaking the previous record which was set-you guessed it-in 2014.

To deny the existence of climate change in the face of this kind of data is irrational. Saying so is not partisan or biased, it's simply an accurate description of their behavior. The same is true of the GOP's position on health care, national budgets, state budgets, and tax policy. In all cases their policies are counterfactual and counterproductive.

Doubt that? Consider the collapse of the economy in Kansas after they adopted supply-side and trickle-down-economics. Or the fact that the three biggest economic collapses in U.S. history followed periods when the Republicans were in control and they'd implemented their destructive laissez-faire economic policies. Or watch as they fumble with health care, literally threatening death to hundreds of thousands in the process, and leaving 22 million more Americans uninsured.

But the press still covers all this in a way that is "balanced," rather than accurate. Oh, yes, they will often point out that the Republican "perspective" is opposed by most scientists, or that economists and health care specialists take issue with their proposals, but they don't point out just how at odds their rhetoric is with reality. And that's the real story here. It's not that there are two different perspectives on climate, or the economy, or the consequences of taxation and fiscal policies or health care. It's that this Party is behaving as if it were literally insane. And that should be newsworthy. Throw in Trump's irrational, self-destructive and contradictory tweets, and the press should be running above-the-fold headlines and lead stories sounding the alarm.

Which raises the question, why aren't they?

Well, they're wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America, that's why. That's who this four-decade long scam benefits, at least in the short-term. They get to liquidate the earth and the environment for fun and profit with nothing but he-said/she-said stories from the elite establishment media.
Which brings us to elephant number two-the Democrats' embrace of the raw deal over the New Deal.
The idea that there is a party representing the left (or the people, for that matter) in the U.S. is ludicrous. We have a right-wing party representing the oligarchy-the Democrats-and an insanely right-wing party-the Republicans-that represents an extremist fringe of the rich, including folks like the Koch brothers, Betsy DeVos etc. More about this in a moment, but back to the Democrats for now.

Back before Bill Clinton brought "triangulation," centrism and corporatism to the Democratic Party, about half of all eligible voters claimed to be Democrats, while only about 25 percent identified as Republican. Today, only about 29 percent identify as Democrat, and too many of them don't bother to vote because the choices are so abysmal.

In a race between those appealing to the passionately ignorant with contentious wedge issues and those paying lip service to progressivism while governing for plutocrats, the passionately ignorant will always win.

Now back to those rich folks who have created the right-wing revolution. In what has been the least reported, but most important issue of our times, a group of wealthy individuals essentially purchased the press and both parties.

The bones of the takeover can be found in a memo drafted by Lewis Powell, dated Aug. 23, 1971. In it, he outlined a systematic approach to turning the country to the right and making it more business friendly. He focused on the long term, on institution building, and on influencing education at all levels, including what kind of textbooks should be allowed. He noted that most media outlets were owned by corporations, and thus, could be made to represent the perspective of corporate America. Powell's manifesto repeatedly used the terms "fair" and "balanced." Ring a bell?

Of course, any good coup needs resources, and that's where the right-wing fat cats come in. A cadre of uber-wealthy ultra-conservatives including Richard Scaiffe, Adolph Coors, the Koch brothers (as well as their father, who helped fund the John Birch Society), Alice and Jim Walton, John Olin, Lynde and Harry Bradley, and Betsy DeVos helped fund think tanks, foundations and endowed university chairs designed to carry forward their assault on government, a mindless celebration of the free market, and a system that rewards the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. They also fostered measures designed to initially roll back laws designed to assure the media functioned in an impartial manner and ultimately, once those laws were rolled back, to purchase it outright.

Today, there is a virtual army of think tanks that are paid to make the crazy sound sane, to lend legitimacy to the illegitimate, and to tamp down any signs of reason among the citizenry with a mixture of fear, hate, greed, blame, and xenophobia.

But the coup remains the greatest story never told, and the pretense of a left/right political dialectic goes on, with useful idiots like Democratic "strategist" Mark Penn suggesting we take the middle ground between the extreme right wing and the merely right wing, compromising ourselves into the Dark Ages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Greatest Story Too Rarely Told: America Is an Oligarchy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our nation is controlled by corporate power and the individually wealthy, and the major press is in on the con. OK. Enough. It's time to quit being balanced or non-partisan or whatever other euphemism the elite establishment media uses to justify ignoring the two biggest elephants in our national living room.After Trump was elected there was a lot of concern about allowing his idiocy to become the "new normal."

# data[].attributes.body
1) The constitution gives the president the power to "...grant reprieves for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
2) Theses powers of clemency (mercy or leniency) may be used only in cases of federal crimes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Terry Canaan
November 26, 2008

The presidential pardon has been a controversial matter since day one. Virginian George Mason would've been one of the signatories to the new constitution of the United States of America, but disagreed with basic ideas in the document - including the pardon - and refused to sign. On the power of the pardon, Mason worried that a president who had "secretly instigated to commit crimes" with others might use it to prevent "a discovery of his own guilt."

But it was Alexander Hamilton who prevailed in that debate. "The principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in the chief magistrate is this: In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth," he wrote in the Federalist Papers. Unfortunately, Hamilton only foresaw the presidency as a position held by "a single man of prudence and good sense."

Which recent resident of the White House doesn't that sound like to you? Mason's argument is starting to look better.

Still, Hamilton's argument also makes sense. The idea is that executive clemency could be used quickly to avoid a national emergency. Washington used it to end the Whiskey Rebellion, an uprising of Pennsylvanians who refused to pay taxes on booze. Andrew Johnson granted clemency to the entire confederate army - a pretty common sense move that still wasn't without controversy. His opponents accused him of restoring the right to vote to most of the south for political gain.

But it pays to remember that, as historically significant as the Federalist Papers are, they aren't law. Hamilton's opinion of the pardon has no more legal basis than his confidence that there'd never be a President Numbskull. The law is in the Constitution and that reads, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. "

There you go then, that's the law. As you can see, it's not extremely limited. The Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney (that's right, there's an office on the Attorney General devoted solely to pardons) tells us, "The President cannot commute a sentence for a state criminal offense. Accordingly, if you are seeking clemency for a state criminal conviction, you should not complete and submit [a] petition." This is because the Constitution limits them to "Offences against the United States." The only other limitation is impeachment.

Still, you can see how it could be used justly without limiting yourself to Hamilton's rationale. The pardon has been used put aside disproportionate sentences. The idea of being "tough on crime" is nothing new and it's had people imprisoned for incredibly stupid things.

But the pardon is best remembered as being used in a way that George Mason worried about. Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon "for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in..." Good news for Nixon, bad news for Ford. It probably cost him his the election (you can't really say "reelection" in this case) in 1976. Many wondered if Ford had "bought" Nixon's resignation with the promise of presidential mercy.

Later pardons were controversial as well. Bill Clinton's pardons of business partner Marc Rich and half-brother Roger Clinton were widely considered abusive, but completely legal. George W. Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby was also met with outrage. But it was just as legal as Rich's and Clinton's. In fact, Libby's pardon was pretty much exactly what Mason had in mind when he warned of an executive using the power of the pardon to cover-up his own guilt.

Bush didn't grant a full pardon for Libby, but reduced the jail time from 30 months to none, saying the jail time was excessive. Libby still had the conviction and a quarter-million dollar fine, but he was walking around a free man, where he wouldn't have been otherwise. But there were other benefits - at least, for Bush.

"In part, Bush may have stopped short of a full pardon precisely to keep Libby and other White House aides away from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Investigators in Congress are eager to call Libby to testify about the Plame case and prewar Iraq intel - an invitation Libby can continue to resist by claiming he can't talk as long as his appeal remains alive in the courts," Michael Isakoff wrote at the time. Bush managed to keep Libby out of jail but in the legal system.

Not surprisingly, Bush is now being hit with a string of requests for pardons:

Among those seeking presidential action are former junk-bond salesman Michael Milken, who hired former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, one of the nation's most prominent GOP lawyers, to plead his case for a pardon on 1980s-era securities fraud charges. Two politicians convicted of public corruption, former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) and four-term Louisiana governor Edwin W. Edwards (D), are asking Bush to shorten their prison terms.

It remains to be seen how Bush will respond to these requests as his term ends. The president has used his broad pardon powers rarely during seven years in office, granting 157 pardons out of 2,064 petitions, and only six of 7,707 requests for commutations, according to an analysis by former Justice Department lawyer Margaret C. Love.

But the biggest possible pardon is the one that has lefties sweating - can Bush pardon himself? The answer is less than satisfying. No one knows.

Stephen M. Brown, Alternet:

According to attorneys whom I asked, there is no definitive legal answer. There is no case law on the subject and not even much legal analysis of the possibility. All there seems to be are three law review articles that analyze the self-pardon power with arguments for and against its legality. (I am convinced by the arguments against its legality, but given the present Supreme Court, who knows?).

Bush has had no trouble testing the limits of the law before. But it may be that the political question may be more important than the legal one. If Bush pardons himself, everyone will safely assume that he's committed crimes. It's extremely unlikely that Bush could commit any consequential crime alone, which means conspiracy. Where there's a conspiracy, there are conspirators. Bush has spent the past eight years peppering Washington with loyalists, in order to extend his influence beyond his term. Bush can't issue a blanket pardon - he has to name a specific individual or group of individuals - and, if this hypothetical conspiracy is broad enough, he couldn't possibly find everyone who needs to be pardoned without a full-scale investigation of his own. I doubt there's time left for that. The best Bush can probably do is just pretend nothing's wrong and hope for the best - maybe leave the country, just to be safe.

In the end, I think it's probably a lead pipe cinch that Bush is going to issue some sort of controversial pardon before he's out. Probably not for Libby, but maybe for Cheney, Gonzales, or other suspected war criminals or possible corrupt cronies.

That's not the bad news. The bad news is that there probably won't be anything we can do about it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Terry Canaan November 26, 2008 The presidential pardon has been a controversial matter since day one. Virginian George Mason would've been one of the signatories to the new constitution of the United States of America, but disagreed with basic ideas in the document - including the pardon - and refused to sign.

# data[].attributes.body
1) The view that the President may remove the officials he appoints without Senate consent has prevailed over time.
2) In general, the president may remove any appointees except federal judges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Follow the StarTribune for the news, photos and videos from the Twin Cities and beyond.

# data[].attributes.body
1) The president has ten days, to sign a bill passed by congress.

2) The president can veto a bill, but it can be overridden by two-thirds vote in both, Senate and House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Power to veto bills and sign bills - Google Search

# data[].attributes.body
1) The president is the leader of the party he represents.
2) The president can campaign for his members, who have supported his or her polices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
president leading his political party - Google Search

# data[].attributes.headline
Power to represent our nation in talks with foreign countries

# data[].attributes.subject
Power to represent our nation in talks with foreign countries

# data[].attributes.body
1) The president has to follow procedures, while meeting with foreign diplomats.
2)The president can make treaties with permission and approval of Senate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
president with foreign countries - Google Search

# data[].attributes.headline
Power to call out troops for the defense of the country

# data[].attributes.subject
Power to call out troops for the defense of the country

# data[].attributes.body
1) The president can call a draft to request soldiers.
2) President has the ability to request, soldiers on  the spot if the country is threatened.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Power to call out troops for the defense of the country - Google Search

# data[].attributes.headline
Power to make treaties with the approval of the Senate

# data[].attributes.subject
Power to make treaties with the approval of the Senate

# data[].attributes.body
1) The president, usually through the secretary of state, negotiates these international agreements.
2) All treaties must pass approval by a two thirds of the members present vote in the Senate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article II, Section 2: " He (The President) shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

# data[].attributes.body
1) The power of recognition is exercised when the president, acting for the United States, acknowledges the legal existence of another sovereign state.
2) The president may show american displeasure with the conduct of another country by asking for the recall of that nation's ambassador or other diplomatic representatives in this country.