All I see is DOJ advocacy of direct sales: http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...
And the DOJ suing some dealerships under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act: http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...

It sounds like they're doing what they can, which is nice... that is their job, after all.. But I'm still pretty sure they lack the power to do anything about this until they're authorized to intervene by some statute empowered by the Commerce Clause.

A superficially cool idea... However, it ultimately defeats the purpose of a representative democracy. That's more like a random sampled direct democracy. One could argue that may be a better system (I wouldn't), but it certainly wasn't how the country was framed... Though I suppose in all fairness, much of the government has changed just as radically over time.

Touché. Wish I had mod points.. Nobody thinks of unintended consequences that follow giving powerful corporations more power.

People forget that the United States is a Democracy (our people vote for government), and a Republic (we no king.)
Great Britain is also a Democracy, though a Monarchy instead of a Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

It bugs the hell out of me when people say "The US is a republic, not a democracy!". It's non-sensical crazy babble.

"For fiscal year 2003, the Senate, under Democratic control in 2002, failed to pass a budget resolution of any kind. For fiscal years 1999, 2005 and 2007, the House and the Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress."

I guess the Dems finally caught up with the Republicans.
Also, the Democratic congress did pass a joint budget resolution for FY2010 (in 2009).
Is the budget really that big of a deal though? Whether it's implemented in one single continuing resolution, or 8 of them, does it really matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Single budgets are kind of a joke starting in 2001, anyway, with the "war supplementals".
2 budget resolutions died while Reagan was in office, as well. I never thought to criticize him for his bad leadership at the time.

They've got a cave troll.

You mean to tell me a Bush fought a war in Iraq and didn't lower taxes to pay for it?

I jest. Mostly.

Would he? He seems pretty anti-imperialist. The USSR, regardless of what its propaganda told its citizens, was most definitely imperialist.

Not unless there is statute authorizing them to do so, which currently, there isn't... Which is why the response said Congress needs to pass one.
I'm torn on whether or not he should have someone introduce legislation though, since that could very well backfire into a highly partisan war the second the house critters heard of it.

That's funny though, because interstate commerce intrusion is one of the actual enumerated powers of the Federal government, unlike a lot of other shit that it does that are... interpreted powers.

They are.

On the contrary, actual Congressional declarations of war have ended Empires.

It's our little corporate military-backed expeditions that seem to work out in the favor of the targets... and the defense industry.

And when demonstrating how a democratically elected government can fall into dictatorship.
Ultimately, it's not inconceivable that with enough resources and power, some day a US executive could... dismiss Congress.

He didn't need them to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

There is a legitimate contention however regarding whether or not it's OK to have troops in the area not engaged in "military action" after the sunset of the non-authorized force allowance expires.

I also wouldn't try too hard to draw a lot of parallels between the Iraq War, and the super limited Libyan intervention, you'll sprain your brain.

The AG can't sue them unless the States are in violation of some Federal statute, which they are not, since their is no Federal law prohibiting the practice. Not defending the WH, or anyone else, but the statement that Congress must take action is in fact entirely accurate. There just isn't any Federal law regarding this topic for there to be any action from any agency of the Executive.