Obama's recess appointments this week are contrary to the letter of the Constitution, to constitutional principles and to Obama/Democrat principles when Bush was in office. First, check this out:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140770647994692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
So, when Obama says he's only doing what George Bush did, he's flat lying. When he says there's precedent for what he's doing, he's flat lying. When he says what he's doing is constitutional he's flat lying.
So, what to make of this? Under Obama the presidency is becoming imperial. That means republic principles have been thrown out the window. In fact, this is no longer even something one could honestly call a "representative democracy" (which, in case you didn't know, is not the same thing as a republic).
Obama can basically do and is, indeed, doing(!) anything he wants without congress' consent/approval. If congress won't approve something on his agenda, he appoints czars to do it from the executive branch or gives(!) authority to one of several executive branch bureaucracies (like the EPA, FCC and others) to implement his policies without congressional approval OR oversight. That means, my friends, that this is no longer a representative democracy. Your elected representatives in congress have nothing to say about any of this, including his appointments this week in very, very powerful executive branch bureaucracies.
The way it's supposed to work is, the president's party proposes an item on Obama's agenda in the form of legislation. Then either it advances in one house and then moves to the other for approval OR each house (senate and house of representatives) produce their own versions of the legislation at which point both bills go to a conference committee to work out a compromise.
Well, this president doesn't want(!) compromise that's required(!) under our constitution so he goes forward implementing his agenda the way he wants (ie, without the compromise that's required under our constitution!) via the executive branch within bureaucracies that don't answer to congress. In other words, his agenda is implemented without consideration of, consent by or oversight by The People's duly elected representatives.
The Constitution was specifically constructed to prevent any one person having this kind of power. After all, it was such one-man authoritarian control by the king of England without representation from the colonists that led to our declaration of independence and separation from English control. We fought a revolution against one-man, representative-ignoring control over us.
Read the Declaration of Independence. In it, we outlined our grievances with him which include several along the line of these quotes:
"He has dissolved (in our current case, ignored, which is the same in effect/principle) Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasion on the rights of the people."
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our consitution (ie, czars and executive branch bureaucracies in general), and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation." Ie, without approval by the people's representatives.
"... for suspending our own legislature and (executive branch authorities) declaring themselves(!) invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." Ie, without involvement by the people's representatives.
Our Constitution was constructed to prevent such abuses of power by one man or many men. It was never(!) intended for a president to have such authority over us without congress' involvement in every respect that has significant effects on us. In fact, the constitution was constructed to give congress(!) ultimate authority over such things via their veto-override authority. Therefore, the Constitution says Congress may pass legislation without the president's approval. And the president may NOT put legislation into effect by any means outside the authority of congress. Instead, President Obama is acting like HE has ultimate authority regardless what congress will or will not support. He won't even give them a chance to work out compromise legislation because he wants to get his way 100% and has no interest in compromise as structured into our constitution.
This is becoming an imperial presidency and that's abhorent to truly freedom-loving people.
No comments:
Post a Comment