“After defeat of Senate cybersecurity bill, Obama weighs executive-order option”
Of course he does! Because “we can’t wait” — and evidently, being told by Congress he must is not something a king will tolerate.
Senate Republicans recently blocked cybersecurity legislation, but the issue might not be dead after all.
The White House hasn’t ruled out issuing an executive order to strengthen the nation’s defenses against cyber attacks if Congress refuses to act.
– Quick interjection: notice how that’s phrased. Obama will issue an executive order to strengthen the nation’s defenses — against a GOP-led House that, it is implied, refuses to do any such thing.
“In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in an emailed response to whether the president is considering a cybersecurity order.
“Moving forward, the President is determined to do absolutely everything we can to better protect our nation against today’s cyber threats and we will do that,” Carney said.
An executive order may accomplish many of the goals of the Cybersecurity Act, but it could also further raise the ire of Republicans and the business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who lobbied against the legislation.
Republicans have already accused President Obama of making illegal power grabs with his previous executive actions, and a cybersecurity order would likely elicit similar howls of disapproval.
Although Sen. Collins was frustrated by the defeat of her bill, she reacted coolly to the idea of the president bypassing Congress.
“I’m not for doing by executive order what should be done by legislation,” she said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one of the main co-sponsors of the Cybersecurity Act, said she prefers that Congress address the problem, but she is open to presidential action if Congress fails.
“I suppose if we can’t, the answer would be yes,” she said when asked whether she would support an executive order.
Obama is perfectly happy to work within the conventional trappings of a constitutional system when doing so aids his objectives, providing them the veneer of legal authority. When that system is working against him, however, he ignores or pushes back against the built in constraints to his power, and the media — you know, those who Speak Truth to Power — not only allow him to get away with it, but they give him as much cover as they can manage: here, the President is just trying to strengthen the nation’s security, and the politicized GOP House is obstructing him strictly on partisan grounds! How dare they! And yet, this same media seems not the least concerned about the security implications of refusing to secure the border or even detain most illegals — not to mention its decision to sue states hoping to do just that in the face of intentional federal inaction.
Because for “progressives,” a leftist dictator is more desirable than a slow-moving a constitutional republic wherein the voters can throw a wrench in the works by putting the House in the way of the Democrat legislative agenda. And they will do everything they can to prop him up — including promoting the risible idea that this President is more concerned about the nation’s defenses than are those “obstructing” him.
– Who, let’s add, were voted overwhelmingly into place in 2010 to do just that.
Incidentally, wasn’t this the bill that Schumer had planted some ban on “high capacity magazines” into — that is, mags over 20 capacity — which has nothing whatever to do with “cybersecurity”? I see no mention of that in the story, so I wonder if it was struck out of the bill, or if the Hill (and others) are just not reporting it. Because if it stayed, it’s easy to see why such a thing would get struck down in the House (beyond the weight the Chamber of Commerce applied to defeat the measure).