ADVERTISEMENT

Constitition

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,646
755
113
la la land
how many more laws do we let BHO rewrite, before we have had enough?

Yes other Presidents have had more Executive orders but none have done more to destroy the Constitution.
 
Originally posted by aTUfan:

how many more laws do we let BHO rewrite, before we have had enough?

Yes other Presidents have had more Executive orders but none have done more to destroy the Constitution.
can you please explain the rationale you used to quantify the amount of destruction done to the Constitution by each president?
 
Its not the number of executive orders BHO has given, but their severity. For instance many of his EO's have overturned already existing laws (duly passed by congress) that should only be "alterred" by the SCOTUS or that Congress. A few examples:

*Directed the Justice Dept (and his buddy Holder) to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act
already passed by congress

*Gave states "wavers" from federal required mandates on education issues already passed in congress

*Changed the timing of many provisions and the application of them of his own "Obamacare" law already passed in congress

*Declared anti-gay rights laws already passed as unconstitutional

*Halted deportation of certain illegals (here breaking the law), something that breaks his oath of office



Hope that clarifies a few of the details.








This post was edited on 2/10 10:33 PM by rabidTU
 
By using the executive orders the way he is, he is changing the law in this way - He's considering laws that were duly passed, signed and enacted before him as "unlawful" because they no longer apply as if the bills were, for instance, vetoed by HIM. But of course that breaks the constitutional process because those bills were never before him to sign. That is a direct violation of his oath of office - "to preserve, protect and defend the constitution". So he is breaking the law but isn't held accountable for it because he isn't faithfully executing them. The constitution has a process of passing laws he is ignoring.



This post was edited on 2/10 10:31 PM by rabidTU
 
Here is an example on a smaller scale.

If a police officer on his own were to simply stop enforcing the law on armed robbery or if the chief of police of a city were to give himself the right to pardon pickpockets. And what would happen if a city mayor simply began bypassing the city council and deeming city ordinances be "passed" like allowing public nudity or the public disciplining of children to set an example for others.

What would the people do in those circumstances? IMO they'd probably find a way to rid themselves of that public official as soon as possible because he is the problem not the system. And they'd demand it be done ASAP and by whatever means possible.

Obama does this on a much larger scale. All public officials have a duty to faithfully execute the laws every time, not selectively decide which will be enforced, what he feels is best for the citizens and when any new law can be implemented. Thats called govt tyranny.
 
I look at the actions of the Executive Branch on a long-term scale and the effects goind forward. I find the continued eroding of our civil liberties quite alarming. Laws passed in reaction to a crisis are seldom good, well thought out law. The Patriot Act is no exception. What have we given up in the so-called name of national security. One might argue that our own government poses more long-term dange than terrorist on U.S. soil. Recent history certainly shows this to be true imo.

I'm also troubled by the Executive's branch apparent ability to change major provisions in laws passed by Congress. Where does this authority end? What prevents the occupant of the White House from re-writing laws for political gain or worst to punish or harm it's enemies. Whenever government power is expanded it's not likely to be taken back by the next in charge.
 
A liberal's take on Obama's executive orders and refusal to follow our constitution:

Constitutional Crisis: Which Way The Military?


January 27, 2014





Some years ago the University of Nebraska asked our firm to help build a crowd for a debate between William Rusher, the publisher of the conservative National Review Magazine and Nat Hentoff, of the liberal The Village Voice.





While William Rusher and William F. Buckley, Jr. and National Review, were already familiar, it was only necessary to read a few back issues of The Village Voice to understand that Nat Hentoff was (and is) one of the world's most articulate liberals. We filled the auditorium; however, we didn't know what to expect. Would the debaters be civil or uncivil?





More than civil, they listened respectfully to what the other had to say. The audience was treated to the best ideas that both conservatism and liberalism had to offer in an atmosphere of respect and even genuine friendship between the two icons of their differing points of view.





Unfortunately, in April, 2012, Mr. Rusher went to his Eternal rest. Fortunately, Mr. Hentoff is still with us and continues to give voice to liberal causes. But what brings this particular column about is that Mr. Hentoff, the consummate left-winger, has just called for the impeachment of President Obama, saying that Mr. Obama is the most dangerous and destructive president ever and is far worse than Mr. Hentoff's former target, President Richard Nixon.





Mr. Hentoff says Mr. Obama has thrown the U.S. Constitution under the bus and is ruling as a dictator. As evidence, Hentoff cites Mr. Obama's delay of the employer mandate in ObamaCare, the changing of types of plans available under ObamaCare, ignoring our immigrations laws, refusing to deport illegal immigrants, enacting stricter gun-control measures without Congressional legislation, sealing his presidential records, creating government offices and Czars without authorization, and changing the pay grades of selected federal employees without authority.





For some work-a-day Americans, these burrs under Mr. Hentoff's saddle might seem insignificant; however, one of conservatism's leading voices, St. John's University Professor M. Northrup Buechner, writing in Forbes Magazine on November 19, 2013, says Mr. Obama's unlawful actions could lead to a troubling scenario: "A Republican Congress is elected and repeals ObamaCare over a Democrat President's veto. The President refuses to enforce the repeal. The Supreme Court rules that the President's refusal is unconstitutional. The President denounces the ruling and refuses to be bound by it.





"If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, the Denouement [outcome] would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces..."





Writing in The Washington Times on November 12, 2013, Commander J.D. Gordon, USN (Ret.), a former Pentagon spokesman, says "...every week since President Obama took office, we've been hearing that another top leader has been summarily fired, despite decades of loyal service and valuable experience protecting the nation. Statistically speaking, it's actually closer to one every 8.8 days, a staggering 200 military brass shown the door in less than five years.





Thus, one wonders if this Stalin-like purge of generals and admirals is a precautionary step taken by Mr. Obama in advance of a descent into the darkness of a Constitutional crisis.





If so, as the actress Bette Davis famously said, "Fasten your seatbelts, this is going to be a bumpy night."





Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, was educated at the University of Oklahoma , the George Washington University , the U.S Naval War College , the University of Nebraska , and Harvard University .[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
This post was edited on 2/11 11:16 AM by Billy Packard
 
In my view, here is the problem.

We don't want to create a culture in DC where one branch dominates the other and can simply ignore the traditional const. process. WE MUST HAVE DEBATE - free speech among equals who may have differing views. Thats why we have 3 branches and a congress of "elected" officials.

A constitutional crisis created in this way can lead the people to consider their govt to be monarchical rather than impartial and fair. A govt that no longer serves ALL with the checks and balances left to us by the founders can force the very people it is supposed to serve into rebelling. The govt has to have the perception it is "within the law" (the constitution). If it is not perceived that way, then the people will rebel. Its why the civil war was fought. The 10th amend at that time was in conflict with the idea that one and all had the same value. The result was a war where american killed american on american soil and the resultant reconstruction era left animosity between states that still exists today.

Monarchical govt does not last imo. The Czars fell. The French Revolution. Our own Revolution against King Georige III. Reforms like the Magna Carta kept nations together. On and on.

If the constitutional process isn't adhered to, then we really are no better than those we fought to rid ourselves from.

IMO
 
If BHO had ideas that were really that good; he could get them into law via correct constitutional channels. Instead of being dictator.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT