Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Should a sitting president involve himself in a state issue?

JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior MemberPosts: 8,111 Senior Member
I've been following the Michigan right-to-work issue a bit. I'll have to admit that I don't know if the state has already passed a law making Michigan a right-to-work state or just trying to. No doubt someone will let me know.

What I do know, though, is that Obama made a trip there this week to make a speech and campaign for the labor unions. My question is should he do this? In more general terms, should any sitting president involve himself in what is strictly a state issue.

I suppose other presidents have done this, although I can't think of any that come to mind at the moment. Again, I'm sure that someone will fill in the blanks for me on that point. Also, this is undoubtedly payback for the union support that Obama has enjoyed during his term in office, and strictly a political move.

In this particular case, I'm using Obama's involvement here because it's recent and relevant for this particulare time. However, I would really like to see this issue addressed in more general and broader terms.

Thanks,
Jerry

Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.

Replies

  • 2manyhobbies2manyhobbies Member Posts: 49 Member
    Maybe that is part of the "pay back he owes Detroit for their support".....

    So how many millions do you think that Little jaunt cost the tax payers????:devil:
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 17,086 Senior Member
    Then why , pray tell, has he not involved himself in any of the other states that enacted Right to Work? He OWES the unions....the union bosses and the flock of sheep that follow them had more than a little to do with getting him elected again...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,111 Senior Member
    The most obvious example is sitting presidents campaigning for congressmen and senators from the same party.

    I see this as a little bit different.

    When a sitting prez campaigns for someone running for congress, it's more of a national issue than what Obama is currently doing in Michigan.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,452 Senior Member
    Been watching it on the news this morning. The MI legislature passed one part of the law already; I think it's the part that says you don't have to join a union and pay dues to keep or hold your job. The union members are doing their usual union thuggery and intimidation tactics in an attempt to influence the vote. Obama just stirred up the pot with his visit to the auto plants, giving tacit approval to the unions to make as much trouble as possible to influence the vote.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    The House voted 58-41, largely upon party lines, to approve a Senate version of the right-to-work law. The bill will head to Synder for signature.

    Republicans in Michigan also were emboldened by the defeat in the November election of a ballot initiative backed by unions that would have enshrined the right to collective bargaining in the state constitution.

    Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss said right-to-work laws would lead to a resumption of the protests that led to unions some 70 years ago.

    "There will be fights on the shop floor if many workers announce they will not pay union dues," Geiss said. The bottom line is the Union does not care about the average worker, just his paying dues so they can use the money for their agenda.
  • woodsrunnerwoodsrunner Senior Member Posts: 2,725 Senior Member
    I can't cite you Chapter and Verse on this, but I'm pretty sure that the first sitting President to attempt to initiate any influence in strictly state affairs was FDR back in the 1930's. Whatever took place in this scenario caused the Georgia State Legislature to almost rise up in arms. I remember reading about this many,many years ago, and I remember that part of the arguement against FDR was that no US President before had ever voiced an opinion, pro or con, on local state issues under consideration by a State Legislature. Roosevelt backed down finally, but argued that he considered Georgia his second home and that he owned land in Georgia and felt that he had the right to become involved in whatever the issue was.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,111 Senior Member
    There is no higher office in any state than the Governor and sitting presidents and other national political leaders often directly or indirectly give support to governors or gubernatorial candidates from their own party.

    In terms of more direct interaction you need to look no further than the recent federal vs. state conflicts with the state immigration laws and with state attempts at voter suppression. Another issue that is likely to come to a head within months is the pot legalization in CO and WA. State marriage law has also been a major source of federal vs. state conflict (federal government does not recognize same sex marriages recognized by the states).

    I still don't see these as being the same. In the cases you cited above, you have either a sitting president supporting someone running for a national office, or a conflict between state and federal statutes. And, to that point, Obama and Holder have certainly not been reticent to involve themselves in these sort of issues. They have been very vocal and proactive in illegal immigration issues as well as voting law issues. It remains to be seen how they will deal with the gay marriage and pot legalization issues. I would not be surprised if they looked the other way on these, but I could be wrong.

    There was also the civil rights movement of the 60s. If I recall correctly, JFK or LBJ sent federal troops to Alabama over this, and was very invovled. There was also the infamous Kent State shootings when national guardsmen fired on protesting students.

    All that said, I simply do not see what you have cited the same as a president campaigning for or against legislation that is entirely reserved as a state issue.

    I'm not old enough to remember the FDR issue that Woodsrunner mentioned. :)
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • lightkeeperlightkeeper Member Posts: 168 Member
    The Union members are Obama's storm troopers.
    I heard a Michigan State Police spokesman say that they will not allow the protesters to trash the statehouse. "This is not Wisconsin" was his quote.
    Obama won't even consider listening to GOP reps on the fiscal cliff stuff - but,the union bosses tell him to jump and he is instantly at their beck & call - Disgusting.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,452 Senior Member
    I can't cite you Chapter and Verse on this, but I'm pretty sure that the first sitting President to attempt to initiate any influence in strictly state affairs was FDR back in the 1930's. Whatever took place in this scenario caused the Georgia State Legislature to almost rise up in arms. I remember reading about this many,many years ago, and I remember that part of the arguement against FDR was that no US President before had ever voiced an opinion, pro or con, on local state issues under consideration by a State Legislature. Roosevelt backed down finally, but argued that he considered Georgia his second home and that he owned land in Georgia and felt that he had the right to become involved in whatever the issue was.

    Rich, it may have been the New Deal Teacher Training Centers that you're thinking about. It caused a dustup at Emory. The thing turned out to be a hotbed for teaching socialism.

    http://www-distance.syr.edu/kornbluh.html
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Fat BillyFat Billy Senior Member Posts: 1,813 Senior Member
    I saw on the news there was a mob protesting the Legislation. I didn't know enough people still lived in Detroit to form a mob. Once the law is implemented companys will start going back there with no unions to fight against. The union members aren't sharp enough to understand that the unions cost 'em their jobs by "saving" the jobs. Go figure. :yesno: Later,
    Fat Billy

    Recoil is how you know primer ignition is complete.
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    To answer the initial question.....not unless the state issue has Federal ramifications....Interstate traffic....let's look at Pot. Just cause it's legal on one side don't make it legal on the other. We in Colorado buy "illegal fireworks" in Wyoming, and bring them back here......that's a state level thing.....now think....people in surrounding states come here to buy marijuana......they cross a state line and now its a felony.

    As for the initial post about right to work.....that's a state issue, but when you dole out Welfare because you can't get a job for whatever reason....it delves in the Fed's side of things.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Fat Billy wrote: »
    I didn't know enough people still lived in Detroit to form a mob

    The mob was probably bused in- - - - - -the dummycraps are through rioting over elections now, and their well-paid union thugs are available for other stuff. They assaulted a Fox News guy on camera, and then tore down a big tent with women and old folks inside.
    Jerry
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,810 Senior Member
    He is trying to destroy the Republican party any place or way he can.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,131 Senior Member
    It passed and Snyder will sign it. Hopefully it will bring some more jobs into the state. We need all that we can get!
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    It passed and Snyder will sign it. Hopefully it will bring some more jobs into the state. We need all that we can get!

    Dang. I was fixing to get you to hire me, then I was gonna organize your other workers. It was a fool proof scheme!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement