Thread: Rule by Fiat

Obama Makes Recess Appointment of Cordray to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
by: Lesley Clark McClatchy Newspapers Progressive Review

Washington - President Barack Obama today will announce the recess appointment of his choice to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, setting up a pitched battle with congressional Republicans who oppose the new agency. Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray was aboard Air Force One with Obama for a trip to Ohio, where White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer – in a Tweet titled "We Can't Wait" - said Obama would announce the appointment.

Senate Republicans last month blocked a confirmation vote on Cordray and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell ripped into Obama for making what he called an "unprecedented recess" appointment – because the Senate is not in official recess. Traditionally, McConnell said, presidents make such appointments only when the Senate is in recess of 10 days or longer. Obama, McConnell said, "has arrogantly circumvented the American people" by making the recess appointment.

"Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress's role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch," McConnell warned.

But Pfeiffer in a White House blog entry said Senate Republicans had created a "gimmick" to prevent Obama from exercising his recess appointment authority. "You might hear some folks across the aisle criticize this 'recess appointment,' Pfeiffer said. "It's probably the same folks who don't think we need a tough consumer watchdog in the first place."

The back and forth over Cordray underscores the partisan fighting that has characterized every development of the new consumer protection bureau, the most tangible government response to the nation's 2008 economic meltdown. In a press conference after Cordray was blocked, Obama appeared to leave the door open for a possible recess appointment when lawmakers were gone for the holidays. "We are not giving up on this," he said. "We are going to keep on going at it. We are not going to allow politics as usual on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of American consumers being protected."

Created by the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law in 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau serves as America's beat cop against deceptive, abusive and predatory loan products in the financial marketplace.

Republicans have opposed the agency from the start, arguing it will hamper job growth. House Speaker John Boehner in a statement said the agency is "bad for jobs and bad for the economy" and charged that Obama had acted beyond the bounds of his authority. "I expect the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate," he said.

Consumer advocates hailed the appointment, saying that the watchdog agency could begin doing its work. "American consumers can not wait any longer while Senate Republicans and industry lobbyists play games with the nomination process," said Lauren Saunders, managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.

http://bit.ly/wPbBMN

R.I.P., Department of Commerce? President Obama Seeks to Consolidate Government Agencies
ABC NewsBy Jake Tapper | ABC News – 20 mins ago

The Department of Commerce will celebrate its 109th anniversary this year, having been created in 1903. And if President Obama gets his way , the agency won't make it much past 110.

Announcing this morning that he is seeking authority to streamline the executive branch, President Obama said he needs the same kind of "authority that every business owner has to make sure that his or her company keeps pace with the times. And let me be clear: I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service, and a leaner government."

As an example, the president wants to shut down the Department of Commerce, taking its core functions and giving them to a new agency that will also fold in the tasks of the Small Business Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency and the Export-Import Bank.

The savings the administration claims will come from this move is roughly 1/400th of the $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit that the president formally informed Congress yesterday that he was seeking.

"Right now, there are six departments and agencies focused primarily on business and trade in the federal government," the president said. "Six. In this case, six isn't better than one. It's redundant and inefficient. With the authority I am requesting today, we could consolidate them all into one department with one website, one phone number and one mission - helping American businesses succeed."

The president added: "This is a big idea. "

This new agency would be smaller than the sum of its previous parts by up to two thousand employees (which will be lost through attrition, the White House says), and saving $3 billion over the next decade, said Jeffrey Zients, head of management at the Office of Management and Budget.

"We live in a 21st century economy, but we've still got a government organized for the 20th century," President Obama said this morning. "Our economy has fundamentally changed - as has the world - but the government has not. The needs of our citizens have fundamentally changed but their government has not. Instead, it has often grown more complex."

The president noted that there are "five different entities dealing with housing; more than a dozen agencies involved in food safety. And my favorite example, which I mentioned in last year's State of the Union Address. As it turns out, the Interior Department is in charge of salmon in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater. Apparently, this all had something to do with President Nixon being unhappy with his Interior Secretary for criticizing the Vietnam War, and so he decided not to put NOAA in what would have been a more sensible place."

The president is as of today elevating SBA administrator Karen Mills to a cabinet-level position to head this new agency on a temporary basis until Congress deals with this proposal. The weather service provided by NOAA and housed in Commerce will become part of the Department of the Interior, while the Census Bureau, also part of Commerce, will go to the Department of Labor.

"Given the President's record of growing government, we're interested to learn whether this proposal represents actual relief for American businesses or just the appearance of it," said a skeptical Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "American small businesses are more concerned about this administration's policies than from which building in Washington they originate. We hope the President isn't simply proposing new packaging for the same burdensome approach. However, eliminating duplicative programs and making the federal government more simple, streamlined, and business-friendly is always an idea worth exploring. We look forward to hearing more about his proposal."

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said "Americans want a government that's simpler, streamlined, and secure. So after presiding over one of the largest expansions of government in history, and a year after raising the issue in his last State of the Union, it's interesting to see the President finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control. And while we first learned of this proposal this morning in the press, we'll be sure to give it a careful review once the White House provides us with the details of what it is he wants to do."

The move might help GOP presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry, who has called for the elimination of three agencies - Commerce, Education, and Energy - but has seemed to struggle with remembering more than two of them.

http://news.yahoo.com/r-p-department...-abc-news.html

comments

The Quote of the Decade:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006!

...

How about him cutting all those Czars he appointed to BIG buck salaries and huge expense accounts that do diddly squat ????

....

Why doesn’t the President do something that is already in his power to reduce spending?

For Example, he could sign an Executive Order requiring all Federal Employees to fly Coach instead of Business or First Class unless they paid for the upgrade themselves. This would save over $300M per year.

...

Goverment is NOT a business and shouldn't be treated as a profit generating entity.

Obama thumbs nose at Founders with one-man rule
by Michael Barone 01/16/2012

Of course President Obama is not concentrating on campaigning, White House press spokesmen assured us -- as the president headed off to Chicago for three fundraisers and a drop-in at his campaign headquarters, two days after a high-roller fundraising choked off traffic five blocks from the White House, with the assistance of a score of D.C. police cars.

No one, or at least no one who is paying attention, is fooled. It's standard presidential procedure to say you're not absorbed in campaigning even as you go out to raise money every other day. Bill Clinton​, in my view, spent an undue amount of time fundraising, George W. Bush spent more, and Barack Obama​ makes them both look like pikers.

So Obama's scorn for the truth in this regard is only a minor matter. His scorn for the Constitution is something else.

That scorn has been expressed most recently in his "recess" appointments of members of the National Labor Relations Board​ and the chairmanship of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The quotation marks are appropriate because when he made the appointments the Senate was not in recess as the Constitution requires.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says that presidential appointments must be confirmed by the Senate unless Congress provides otherwise. But anticipating that the government may need officials when the Senate is unavailable, the section further provides that "the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of the next session."

What constitutes a recess? Article I, Section 5 reads, "Neither house, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days."

The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments.

The White House has belatedly trotted out an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (headed by a political appointee) saying that the president was justified in considering the Senate in recess, because the sessions it was holding every three days were just pro forma or, in the words of Obama defenders, "gimmicks."

Factually this is flat wrong. At one of those sessions the Senate passed the payroll tax cut extension, an important piece of legislation.

More important, what gives the head of the executive branch the authority to decide whether one house of the legislative branch is conducting serious business? Can the president decide that the quality of Senate debate is so poor on any particular day that he may deem it to be in recess?

The recess appointments Obama made are to important offices. The National Labor Relations Board last year issued a complaint against Boeing for building a $1 billion aircraft plant in South Carolina. The complaint was withdrawn only after the union representing Boeing's Washington state workers bludgeoned the company into promising more jobs there.

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, established by the Dodd-Frank Act, has unusual powers, with a guaranteed revenue stream rather than reliance on congressional appropriations and a director with a fixed term (but can it extend beyond the end of the next session of Congress?) and independence from other regulatory authorities.

On this, Obama defied not only the Constitution, but Dodd-Frank, which explicitly states that the CFPB head can only take legal action after he is confirmed by the Senate. Presumably anyone aggrieved by one of his orders will sue and probably prevail.

So the appointment may turn out to be a futile act. But, hey, it's good fodder for campaign ads.

That's substantiated by the explanation for the appointment you can find of my.barackobama.com: "When Congress refuses to act, he will."

This looks uncomfortably close to the view taken by King Louis XIV. "L'etat, c'est moi," he is supposed to have said, and you don't need John Kerry's or Mitt Romney​'s command of French to know that that means one man rule.

The Framers of the Constitution saw it a different way. When the Senate refuses to confirm a presidential appointee, that person does not take office. When the Senate is not in recess, the president cannot make a recess appointment.

The Framers thought it more important to limit power than for government to act quickly. Barack Obama disagrees.

Republican presidential candidates have been praising the Founding Fathers. Obama has been defying them. Interesting contrast.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48816

comments

By calling the Senate sessions "pro forma" and "a gimmick", Hussin is essentially saying the Senate pulled a legal trick. Let´s remember that one or more of the NLRB appointees was awaiting confirmation only bcause Hussein submitted his (there) name(s) TWO DAYS PRIOR to what was expected to be the normal recess period. So Hussein played his own little trick, also.

...

This is a clear violation of the Constitution. Its an impeachable offence. Of course the Democrats control the Senate so there's no chance of impeachment.

In the past, there would have been bi-partisan opposition in both the House and the Senate. What Obama did was usurp the power of the Legislature. One of the key checks the Legislature has on the Executive is the Senate's role in confirming (or not) Presidential appointments. Obama has usurped that power. What's shocking, therefore, is not merely that Obama has violated the Constitution but that he has done so with the full support of Democrats in both the House and the Senate. Republicans have uttered, in a few cases, meek complaints which have accomplished precisely nothing. Every country that has adopted a US style Constitution has devolved into a Socialist Dictatorship. Obama has put us on the same path.

...

This just keeps getting better. First, Hussein accepts the FICA tax cut extention indicating that the Senate was in session. Then he pulls this stunt, saying the Senate is really in recess. Now he sent the notification that he needs the auto increase inthe debt ceiling so I guess once again the Senate is in session.

And the Congress does ZERO to stop him. This is what happened in Venezuela.

hhmmmmm... know what happens to crickets ??

Obama Issues Another Unconstitutional Edict
By John Hull | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 15 hrs ago

COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama issued an executive order Tuesday establishing another new bureaucracy. Obama again circumvented Congress with his latest Executive Order, the Establishment of the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center.

The order begins with the line, "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America," which begs the question: Is the president ignorant or indifferent?

The Constitution gives the president no such power to regulate commerce. This power is exclusive to the Congress. Obama's presidential aggrandization should come as no shock from a man who ordained himself a professor when, in reality, only reaching the rank of "senior lecturer," as reported by FactCheck.org.

On March 30, 2007, Obama stated, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president [George W. Bush] I actually respect the Constitution." His track record proves differently.

To be fair, he is not the first president to improperly use the executive order, which is as stated, an order to the executive branch, not a law. The argument will no doubt be that Article 2, Section 3 gives the president power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." But the law is that Congress regulates foreign commerce, not the president, therefore to properly execute the law he must defer to Congress.

Even Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black makes this distinction in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer (1952), in which he writes, "The President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker."

This falls in line with the president's "We Can't Wait" campaign, which, contrary to appearances, is not as much a dig on Congress as it is a realization he only has until January to institute as much of his destructive policies as he can before he loses his job, as have millions of Americans during his administration.

If Obama is a "constitutional scholar," then he is deliberately violating the Constitution that he swore to uphold while taking his oath of office. Whether it be this or the governmental trespass on religion under his self imposed authority, it is clear he has no respect whatsoever for the Constitution.

Any real constitutional scholars care to weigh in on why I have it right or wrong?


http://news.yahoo.com/obama-issues-a...222500519.html

Written on March 19, 2012 at 8:12 am
Barack Obama Issues Martial Law Executive Order

Friday afternoon, March 16, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order that authorizes peacetime martial law in the United States of America. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...s-preparedness The Executive Order is titled, National Defense Resources Preparedness Order. In effect that document gives full and complete control over the entire countries natural resources in case of a natural disaster or during a time of war.

Barack Obama granted to himself authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.

The document itself though is not limited to a time of war or even of that of a natural disaster. Rather the text of the document says that the President can invoke these powers for national defense in the “full spectrum of emergencies” (Sec 103a). Here is the specific section in context:

Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).

Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

Barack Obama claims that the authority for such a radical and far reaching order is found in the Defense Production Act of 1950.

What exactly will he be taking over in regards to ‘natural resouces’? Food? Yes. Livestock? Yes. Control the Water Supply? Yes. Other thing? Yes. Here is the relevant section of the order:

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.

(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.

This is, in effect, a marital law declaration. In case you were wondering, yes, it means all natural resources, including you, your family and all your goods. After all, all of those are considered natural resources.

There is no doubt that the implementation of this executive order in this election year is not by coincidence. Rather, this author believes we are about to see a very serious power grab along with what our military terms as “false flags” in order for Barack Obama to use this executive order and completely become dictatorial, through the means of martial law.

Our nation has seen such orders enacted in the past such as President Abraham Lincoln in the War of Northern Aggression and also President Woodrow Wilson. This administration has already told us via the Defense Secretary that Congress and its Constitutional authority are meaningless to them. http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/0...tution/http:// They are merely considered ceremonial to the Obama administration.

There is no question that this year could be the beginning of a true war between the government and the people as it seems that Barack Obama is hell bent on continuing his Chicago gangster methods to become the Godfather dictator that we have been saying he was aiming for, for far too long. God help us!

http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/0...ecutive-order/

17/649


Is it possible we no longer have a "Commander in Chief"? Do we now have an "Imperial President"? Check out the new GGW article by contributor Col. Don Myers (USMC, ret.).

The Imperial Presidency

This past Monday President Obama challenged the Supreme Court by stating that in effect it did not have the authority to judge “ObamaCare”. His comments were quite specific and challenges arose from many quarters rather rapidly. The following day, he refined his comments and made them less severe but that did not change the uproar from numerous quarters. On Wednesday the White House press secretary explained the President’s comments even more in an effort to quiet the uproar. Many Presidents have been upset at the Supreme Court, but that normally occurred after the court made a ruling that was contrary to the President’s desire. The greatest example was in the 1930′s when President Roosevelt threatened to stack the court with six more justices who would be in agreement with his desires. Fortunately, that went nowhere.

The media has been reporting and opining from every direction in an effort to make sense of the situation. Some suspect that the President was trying to intimidate the court, while others believe that he was sending a message to his base about his commitment to people without health insurance. This is just the latest example of President Obama acting like his decisions should not be questioned. Remember when he chastised the Supreme Court at his State of the Union address because the court ruled against him on campaign contributions by businesses.

Since the midterm election when the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives, the President has stated that he will use his executive powers and the various agencies to achieve his desired results and not wait for Congress to act. True to his words, the auto industry has been given additional requirements concerning gas mileage for future cars. Kathleen Sebelius head of Health and Human Services issued a mandate for organizations associated with the Catholic church to provide medical insurance for areas that are contrary to the church’s tenets. That is still in the news and being fought by the Catholic church as an attack on the First Amendment. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of references in the ObamaCare bill that dictate “as directed by the head of HHS.”…WOW!!

General Motors and Chrysler were both in financial straits and the President in effect nationalized those companies. Bankruptcy laws were ignored as the government stepped in and provided federal money (i.e. taxpayers money). Even though the unions had no financial interest involved in backing the companies they received a huge share of the companies in the final settlement. There are those who say that the takeover decision was proper, but no one will ever be able to determine if the bankruptcy laws could have done the same. Under bankruptcy laws, both companies could have reorganized and eliminated some of the burdens that arose over the years.

Banks and insurance companies have not been immune to intrusion by this government. Some banks were forced to take TARP loans and later when banks wanted to return the money with interest to the government, the government dragged its feet so that it could keep more control over the banks. These actions all add up to an Imperial Presidency and until Congress and the people rise up in righteous indignation, it will continue and become more severe.

Colonel Don Myers,
USMC (ret.)

http://governmentgonewild.org/theimperialpresidency

Originally Posted by gmyers

About the drug shortages can people sue if someone in their family dies because of the shortages. And who the hospital or the drug companies.

That is an excellent question...

Shift on executive power lets Obama bypass rivals
President takes routes around congressional Republicans blocking his agenda
By Charlie Savage


WASHINGTON — One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism. “We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”

For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals. But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.

Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable. “What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”

Mr. Obama has issued signing statements claiming a right to bypass a handful of constraints — rejecting as unconstitutional Congress’s attempt to prevent him from having White House “czars” on certain issues, for example. But for the most part, Mr. Obama’s increased unilateralism in domestic policy has relied on a different form of executive power than the sort that had led to heated debates during his predecessor’s administration: Mr. Bush’s frequent assertion of a right to override statutes on matters like surveillance and torture. “Obama’s not saying he has the right to defy a Congressional statute,” said Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor. “But if the legislative path is blocked and he otherwise has the legal authority to issue an executive order on an issue, they are clearly much more willing to do that now than two years ago.”

The Obama administration started down this path soon after Republicans took over the House of Representatives last year. In February 2011, Mr. Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, against constitutional challenges. Previously, the administration had urged lawmakers to repeal it, but had defended their right to enact it.

In the following months, the administration increased efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions through environmental regulations, gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls, and refocused deportation policy in a way that in effect granted relief to some illegal immigrants brought to the country as children. Each step substituted for a faltered legislative proposal. But those moves were isolated and cut against the administration’s broader political messaging strategy at the time: that Mr. Obama was trying to reach across the aisle to get things done. It was only after the summer, when negotiations over a deficit reduction deal broke down and House Republicans nearly failed to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, that Mr. Obama fully shifted course.

First, he proposed a jobs package and gave speeches urging lawmakers to “pass this bill” — knowing they would not. A few weeks later, at the policy and campaign strategy meeting in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, the president told aides that highlighting Congressional gridlock was not enough. “He wanted to continue down the path of being bold with Congress and flexing our muscle a little bit, and showing a contrast to the American people of a Congress that was completely stuck,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, a deputy chief of staff assigned to lead the effort to come up with ideas.

Ms. DeParle met twice a week with members of the domestic policy council to brainstorm. She met with cabinet secretaries in the fall, and again in February with their chiefs of staff. No one opposed doing more; the challenge was coming up with workable ideas, aides said.

The focus, said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, was “what we could do on our own to help the economy in areas Congress was failing to act,” so the list was not necessarily the highest priority actions, but instead steps that did not require legislation.

Republican lawmakers watched warily. One of Mr. Obama’s first “We Can’t Wait” announcements was the moving up of plans to ease terms on student loans. After Republican complaints that the executive branch had no authority to change the timing, it appeared to back off.

The sharpest legal criticism, however, came in January after Mr. Obama bypassed the Senate confirmation process to install four officials using his recess appointment powers, even though House Republicans had been forcing the Senate to hold “pro forma” sessions through its winter break to block such appointments. Mr. Obama declared the sessions a sham, saying the Senate was really in the midst of a lengthy recess. His appointments are facing a legal challenge, and some liberals and many conservatives have warned that he set a dangerous precedent.