Obama’s Constitution Features “Obstreperation of Powers” [1]

Judge jury and executioner - A One Man Constitution(graphic credit)

.

Jeff - icon sizeBy Jeff Rutherford

Here is President Obama’s brief statement to the press before his first cabinet meeting of 2014, on January 14th:

If you’re a Progressive, you listened to the whole 2½ minutes and believe the promised outcomes justify any methods required to achieve them, because the President was elected and re-elected to run this country, and has an obligation to fulfill the promises he made to those who voted for him.

And you thought the President’s pronouncement that

“…we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need.  I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.

was a pretty snappy line and a muscular show of leadership in the face of obstructionists in Congress that are blocking the President’s transformational agenda.  You’re proud of him.  During this 2½ minutes that you’ve watched, the Constitution doesn’t enter your mind.

If you’re a Conservative, you listened to the first 25 seconds and heard a President that brazenly dismisses the Constitutional limits imposed on the Executive Branch.  You heard the President go on to say

“I can use that pen to sign Executive Orders and take Executive Actions and Administrative Actions that move the ball forward….”

You understand that the Constitution specifies the Executive Branch’s role is to execute and administer the carefully-enacted laws and spending appropriations of the Legislative branch.  Its role is NOT to take the ball into its own hands and move an agenda forward, ahead of the Legislative branch.

As a Conservative, you recognize that what this President openly said he’s going to do is unconstitutional.  Thank goodness the Constitution provides methods of checks and balances, allowing a naturally self-protective Legislative Branch to restrain an imperial president via the impeachment process.

You’re confident that if President Obama actually says anything like this directly to Congress – during a State of the Union speech for example – then Congress will surely be offended by such a display of intent for Executive overreach.

When you first heard this “I have a pen and a phone” statement by President Obama on January 14th, you had to wait 2 weeks for the State of the Union address.  You tuned in 4 days ago to watch the high drama, knowing the battle lines were drawn.  Here’s what was going through your mind:

You can hardly stand the suspense, wondering if the President will actually have the audacity to spit in the eye of Congress and bring their anger thundering down upon him.  You start watching this speech:

At the 07:22 point in his address, President Obama actually does it.  He says this about his various proposals:

Some require congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still, and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps WITHOUT legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m gonna do.

As he finishes that astonishing sentence, the look of determined belligerence on his face is chilling.  Here it is, in freeze-frame:

Im gonna bypass Congress whenever I can

You think “Oh man, this is it.  Congress is not going to accept being told directly to their face by a president that he intends to bypass them wherever and whenever he can.  Surely impeachment proceedings will begin tomorrow!”

But then, aghast, you watch for 15 seconds while the Progressives in Congress stand, applaud, and cheer the President’s unconstitutional intent to bypass them:

Progressive legislators applauding their own irrelevance

These Progressives hold a majority in the Senate, and they are clearly ecstatic at hearing how irrelevant they are.  Impeachment?  Yeah, right….

Progressives who are reading my words are thinking “You’re exaggerating.  He said he’s eager to work with Congress.  And he only said ‘wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation….’  Clearly this shows he realizes there are some things he can’t do.”

To you Progressives, I say:  What consequences does he face for overreach?  Will he fail to be re-elected?  No…he’s ineligible to run.  Will he be prosecuted by the Justice Department?  No…Eric Holder is his puppet.  Will he be impeached?  No, not by these lemmings who applauded his imperial declaration.

He disregards his oath of office [2], and still he faces no consequences because neither Congress nor the Press holds him accountable.

All the powers of the United States Government that were intended to be broadly separated are now, instead, tightly concentrated on the head of a pin.  Indeed, this one pinhead now rules this country, as if from a throne.

Folks, we no longer have even the dreaded “living” Constitution.

We have a Dead Constitution.

Dead Constitution(photo credit)

Footnotes:

[1] Obstreperate:  “to be aggressively noisy, to create an unruly din, to be stubbornly resistant to control.”

[2]  Presidential oath of office (per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):  “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.

Advertisements

About Necessary and Proper

Jeff believes in the Individual's ability to excel when liberty and freedom of choice are protected. Also believes in the Community's ability to take care of the vast majority of its own issues and needs when the federal government leaves the Community's resources and sphere of control alone. State and local choice produce better results than centralized federal control. https://necessaryandpropergovt.wordpress.com/
This entry was posted in Politics in Practice, Theory of Gov't and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Obama’s Constitution Features “Obstreperation of Powers” [1]

  1. Richard M Nixon (Deceased) says:

    1/31/2014: Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.

    Like

  2. Pingback: 2/1/2014: Our Un-Constitutional President | Wise Conservatism

  3. Pingback: 2/1/2014: Our Un-Constitutional President | Tom's Place

  4. The Ed says:

    In your three branches of government I can’t help noticing that it all centers around the Chief Executive.

    Like

  5. Jim R. says:

    It is amazing to me we are allowing this to happen. If a conservative (eg. Bush or Reagan) had made the same kind of assertive comments the Seahawks’ 12th man would sound merely as a whisper compared to the noise the MSM would be making over the overreach of power of the kind we are witnessing today. Shameful.

    Like

    • Progressives don’t want separation of power, they want centralized control. They literally have no use for the Constitution.

      Here’s an excerpt from a letter to the editor in the Denver Post on Dec 29th, regarding the Dec 13th shooting at your alma mater, Arapahoe High School. Note the curled-lip vitriol embedded in the last sentence:

      “The idea of arming educators is barrel-of-hair ignorant. I was a college professor for more than 30 years. If I had been required to pack, I would have quit overnight. I wouldn’t have felt safe in our highly volatile faculty meetings, much less in classrooms and hallways. Sadly, Claire Davis’ death — and her killer’s — won’t change anything. … I am not denigrating the loss of another child at the hands of another child. I am just sick-angry that gun advocates have little common sense, just an archaic document in their holsters.”

      With a venomous snake like that in their faculty meetings, it’s no wonder they were highly volatile.

      Good to hear from you, you Seahawk-lovin’ C.O.B.
      – Jeff

      Like

    • C.O.B. JimR,

      Coincidentally I was reading chapter six of Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments” while on a flight to Baltimore today, and found this paragraph on page 115 which directly complements/corroborates our exchange of comments yesterday:

      “It would seem counterintuitive for Congress to surrender its own power to executive branch entities of its own making…. But if the purpose is to centralize and concentrate power in the federal government, in defiance of our founding principles and the Constitution – as the Statists have preached and promoted actively for more than a century – then the frequent and broad delegation of lawmaking power to a permanent, ever-present federal bureaucracy, insulated from public influence, makes perfect sense.

      – Jeff

      Like

  6. Pingback: 4/12/2014: Broken Contracts, and Remedies | Necessary and Proper Gov't

Chime in! Leave Jeff a comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s