In the same category

The Modern Presidency Is Dangerously Close to an Elective Dictatorship

IMG Auteur
Published : November 14th, 2011
550 words - Reading time : 1 - 2 minutes
( 9 votes, 4.6/5 ) , 3 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
0
Send
3
comment
Our Newsletter...
Category : Editorials

 

 

 

 

These are frustrating times for the President. Having been swept into office with a seemingly strong mandate, he enjoyed a Congress controlled by members of his own party for the first two years of his term. However, midterm elections brought gridlock and a close division of power between the two parties. With a crucial re-election campaign coming up, there is desperation in the president’s desire to “do something” in spite of his severely weakened mandate.

Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task. This may be news to the supposed constitutional scholar who is now our president, but if the political process seems inconvenient to the implementation of his agenda, that is not a flaw in the system. It was designed that way. The drafters of the Constitution intended the default action of government to be inaction. Hopefully, this means actions taken by the government are necessary and proper. If federal laws or executive actions can’t be agreed upon constitutionally- which is to say legally- such laws or actions should be rejected.

The vision of the founders was to set up a government that would remain small and unobtrusive via a system of checks and balances. That it has taken our government so long to get this big speaks well of the original design. The founders also knew the overwhelming nature of governments was to amass power and grow. The Constitution was to serve as the brakes on the freight train of government.

But the Obama administration, like so many administrations in the 20th century, chooses to ignore the Constitution entirely. The increasingly broad use and scope of the Executive Orders is a prime example. Executive Orders are meant to be a way for the president to direct executive agencies on the implementation of congressionally approved legislation. It has become increasingly common for them to be misused in ways that are contradictory to congressional intent, or to bypass Congress altogether in enacting political agendas. The current administration has unabashedly stated that Congress’s unwillingness to pass the president’s jobs bill means that the president will act unilaterally to enact provisions of it piecemeal through Executive Order. Obama explicitly threatens to bypass Congress, thus aggregating the power to make and enforce laws in the executive. This clearly erodes the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship.

Of course, the most dangerous and costly overstepping of executive authority is going to war without a congressional declaration. Congress has been sadly complicit in this usurpation by ceding much of its war-making authority to the executive because it wants to avoid taking responsibility for major war decisions, but that is part of our job in Congress! If the President cannot present to Congress and the people a convincingly strong case for going to war, then perhaps we should keep the nation at peace, rather than risk our men and women’s lives for ill-defined reasons!

This administration certainly was not the first to behave in ways that have defied the Constitution to overstep its bounds. Sadly, previous administrations have set precedents that the current administration is only building upon. It is time for Congress to reassert itself and its constitutional role so that future administrations cannot continue on this dangerous path.


 

 



<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4.6 (9 votes)
>> Next article
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.
WebsiteMake a donation
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
Ron Paul is puzzling.

I've supported him for years, voted twice for him as President, and largely agree with everything enconomical. Yet some of his positions are more than puzzling: they are scary.

Take his stance on Obamacare. He opposed it as a violation of invidiaul choice, which was correct. But then...then...in a recent debate he said, if elected, in the interests of States' rights, he would not opposed States from enacting similar legislation. Which is the reason for the puzzlement. Violation is violation no matter the source: Federal OR State. Pre-Civil War President Buchannan had the same stance regarding slavery: a state matter only.

Then, in another debate gaffe, he said that the United States was partly responsbile for the 9/11 attack. How? Our bases in other countries. We give other countries a lot of money; a lot of money is spent locally in countries by our troops -- and that's a casue for 9/11??

Then we have his Iran gaffe. No threat he said, despite Iran's nuke program and numerous threats to annilate both the USA and Israel.

So, economically, Ron Paul has great ideas; foreign policy wise, I'm afraid not.
Rate :   6  -3Rating :   9
EmailPermalink
Well there are big question marks for me with regard to any of the other Republican candidates who from where im sitting cant seem to keep from putting their foots in their mouths! Theres no way Ron Paul would have made a Perry or Cain gaffe because the mans got the memory of an elephant and knows his politics and facts inside out and backwards! Which is why he is the only man upto the job of President. Clearly however TPTB see him as a threat to their power and will continue to sideline him until or unless they themselves are removed from the controls.
Rate :   3  0Rating :   3
EmailPermalink
Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task.
----------------------

This statement is the key. Here 2) who gets paid in this stasis is followed in importance only by 2) who gets paid to change the forms that progress must engender? Is either answerable to tax payers, if not directly, then at least indirectly through direct tether to the fortunes of superiors who are. The former gives, 'throw the bums out.' The later says, 'fuck the consultants.'

If the answer is no to 1), then the government is not approaching its mode as tyranny - tryanny is already here. If the answer is yes to 1) but no to 2), then inefficiency and dearth of purpose plagues current government. Both mark opportunity for savings. Finally, if the answer is no to 1) and 2) AND you are either not in current government or lack its sanctioned legal counsel, then no matter the official discursive trappings, otherwise, or propoganda - you, citizen sir or madam, are but a slave.

Note: the difference between a negative 1) versuse a negative regards both 1) and 2) is that with the former, you still might be a ronin consultant, who doesn't rely on simply rules lawyering to make his or her living.

Question is - How can the United States avoid its Mayanifcation via Constitutional travesty? All must realize supermajority unilateral mandates as applied against the 'seemingly individual concern' (as recently argued for at the Appelate level regards Healthcare Reform) says only that Change We Can Believe In reduces to euphemism for, We Say No to both 1) and 2)! Such is not a matter of Separation of Powers, it instead renders absurd the fiscal oversight of the citizenry over the government purported to be bound to it.

This attititude if notorized by the Supreme Court, which by Consitutional charter must retain last word, is no longer an academic exercise (either knowledge process or masturbation) or a question of degree concerns the common good (perhaps socialism). This bad boy hitherto unheard of in American history is in fact the real mccoy regards tyranny. As such, for Americans, it would present both the failure of our generation as American and thus as well the death of our nation. If the good is not common to all but money is still collected for service (or worse, ongoing maintenance of some 'evolving' notion of some service) impressed upon all without recourse, opt out, due process - that sirs and madams is quintessential tyranny.

Gripping, drama, eh. Would that the Supreme Court's time was not wasted in this patently needless consideration of reckless political thought. The US government has already admitted it can't contain costs under its new plan. Hell, even the EPA must consider the 'do nothing' program regards any potential change AND the first rule of medicine is 'do no harm.' But in fact, all anyone has to claim is that there is an adequate Healthcare Reform availabe to the United States (even if still not fully worked out) that does not require the lever of such mandates.

In other words, the counter is the notion of mandates should not be used to mandate mandates (as opposed to say a real Healthcare Reform), which is what current 'ploy' using fiscally straw man (better scarecrow because lacking brain) Healthcare Reform clearly attempts. Restated, Feds cannot walk away from fiscal and still push for mandate without pushing for mandates to mandate mandates rather than to institute a now lacking all expedience specific legislation to be mandated. To do so would demonstrate in turn the lack of expedience of mandates for this given application. And this sirs and madams would not only empower needlessly an unbalanced expansion of federal powers, it also as given cannot be just.

It's just a crying shame what passes for legislation and executory in this country these days, just a crying shame. Even if current Healthcare Reform is ramrodded through, the civic tether between citizenry and government has been shredded near shorn in a way that would have made even 4 term FDR puke. If he had the stomach for today's mandates, he just would have declared them himself, and independent of fiscal reality of issues being addressed (like today's proponent's propose) - and then he would have declared himself King. And why not? He is a Roosevelt after all.

Not some nigger like Obama. Call this a rhetorical device. Don't let them take the white man's burden. And suppose this one a rhetorical device too.

Put colorful language aside, and call the ball. In other words, though these two presidents are lumped together, for all his radicalness and thought experiment applied to state in crisis, unlike Obama and his fiendish supporting hoards, Roosevelt and his crew actually comprehended Constitutional restraint.

Arrghhhh!!! More white man's burden!!! No, far rather more defense of the US Constitutional intent by men forced into hard choices by ill fortune to render change to what they would die (and kill) to defend. This concern is not essentially populalist, Obama. The issue is impressed in the very fibre of American being qua American, if and when this notion is ever put to the fire else there is no notion of American qua American. It's thus not something you offer consituents as part of a pre-paid ongoing fee scheduled election card.

Makin' Bacon - I thought Harvard still taught such things or is now just too queer? Ignorance, sirs at Harvard, can be ridiculed into reformation so that proper 'change' can be considered (order is Bacon, the ridicule just today's need). Queer applied as defense against the otherwise rightness of this task is simply ad hominem.

--------------------

Mayanfication of the United States is its stepwise pyramidization via substantial change toward tyranny in favor of Constitution. The move is not inherently Mayan (who were comfortable with government form they declared cultural) but rather in usurping something right out of Robert E Howard. Yet Jurisprudence of Empathy is all the rage.

Question for Justice Sotomayer and Justice Kagan - what is the empathy is afforded to the man who must with a knife in his back say, 'I am done, I am slain', and so die. How bout to his widow and children?

Now - what empathy is afforded Americans if America qua America suffers same? You can't answer it's for some common good. Mandates for mandates destroys that. There is now no more Constitutionally coherent America left to support and protect such quaintness. Don't coddle tyranny.
Latest comment posted for this article
Well there are big question marks for me with regard to any of the other Republican candidates who from where im sitting cant seem to keep from putting their foots in their mouths! Theres no way Ron Paul would have made a Perry or Cain gaffe because the  Read more
phil A. - 11/15/2011 at 5:23 PM GMT
Rating :  3  0
Top articles
World PM Newsflow
ALL
GOLD
SILVER
PGM & DIAMONDS
OIL & GAS
OTHER METALS
Take advantage of rising gold stocks
  • Subscribe to our weekly mining market briefing.
  • Receive our research reports on junior mining companies
    with the strongest potential
  • Free service, your email is safe
  • Limited offer, register now !
Go to website.