The Rise of Unchecked Presidential Power

[ball43 0]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/the_rise_of_unchecked_presiden.html

By Robert Eugene Simmons Jr.

"In order to achieve a dictatorship in a country, you have to go one of two ways. Either you have to foment a violent revolution, using the power of the military to seize the government, or you have to be voted into the position and seize the power slowly. In the USA, it is all but impossible to achieve the takeover via violent overthrow, and the separation of powers makes it difficult to take over via slow seizure of power. However, the plans of the progressives have been working steadily since the Woodrow Wilson administration, and the task is almost complete.

The legislative branch, for example, has ceded vast parts of its authority voluntarily. According the to the Constitution, only the legislature can make laws. Although not the first example of such an agency, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 is a good example. The EPA was founded by an act of the legislature and charged to protect the environment. Since then, the EPA has been writing "regulations" which are, in fact, laws. You can be prosecuted and deprived of freedom or assets for disobeying the regulations of the EPA. Instead of going through all the trouble itself, Congress has delegated the passing of environmental laws to an agency not beholden to the will of the voting public. There are dozens of other agencies so empowered to regulate everything from food and medicine (FDA) to airplane travel (NTSB and FHA) -- all making laws without even a tacit nod to the citizens.

In fact, there are, according to a recent article in the Washington Post, 1.43 million civilians working for the federal government in various bureaucracies, and if state and local governments are taken into account, the number spikes to near 21 million by some estimates. Contrast this with the mere 535 elected members of the federal legislature. Many of these agencies require Senate approval for the presidential appointee to lead them. However, others require no such Senate approval, and presidents often get around the approval process via "recess appointments" such as the one used by Obama in 2010 to install a new chief of Medicare.

Through the passage of the legislation known as ObamaCare, Congress has ceded all regulation of the health insurance and medical industries to the Department of Health and Human Services and the latter's presidential appointee. The financial services reform bill created the Financial Services Oversight Council and literally gave that council the power to regulate and monitor any financial transaction in America without a court order, as well as the ability to summarily seize businesses without judicial review or public disclosure. If passed, the cap and trade bill would give even more sweeping powers to the EPA.

However, the Federal Reserve is probably the single most dangerous entity in existence in America. The Federal Reserve has the power to create money electronically at will, set interest rates, and buy whatever it wants in the economy with practically no need to consult Congress for approval.

When it comes to violating the separation of powers and seizing executive power, no president has done more since FDR than Obama. What is more, Obama doesn't even try to hide the maneuvering, but instead does it out in the public eye. By his first state of the union speech, Obama had successfully passed TARP II and III, giving the secretary of treasury (executive branch) sole discretion over a sum of money equal to the budget of some small countries, and passed the stimulus bill, giving presidential allies big payouts. During the state of the union speech, the president brazenly said that he would establish his debt commission by executive order because the Senate refused to pass the bill that would have allowed it.

It is worth noting that an Executive Order is issued solely by the president and is virtually impossible to overturn. In order to overturn an executive order, the Supreme Court would have to strike it down (which has happened only twice) or the Congress would have to muster enough votes to overcome a presidential veto of a bill passed in direct contrast to the executive order. Therefore, an executive order is not really that far from a dictatorial edict, and Obama has made frequent use of the technique.

However, the Obama administration isn't picking on only the legislative branch. When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations should have the same freedom of speech in political campaigns as labor unions, Obama took the opportunity to publicly chastise the Supreme Court in his second state of the union address, while announcing his plans to circumvent the decision. The DISCLOSE Act, passed in 2010, went a long way toward that goal.

Obama's political appointees have also been active in the field of law enforcement. In August 2010, the Houston Chronicle reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ordered the dismissal of cases for deportation of illegal aliens who do not have felonies (other than the felony of illegal reentry) on their record. Furthermore, when two thugs with nightsticks from the New Black Panther Party were intimidating voters at a polling place, the Department of Justice charged the two defendants and received a summary judgment but were then ordered by political appointees to drop the case. According to whistle-blower DOJ Attorney J. Christian Adams, DOJ lawyers were ordered to not pursue any case for voter intimidation in which the defendant was black.

Never in the history of man has a government with highly centralized powers and minimal checks and balances ended well. Today, the executive branch in the USA has the power to do almost anything it wants. The legislature is all but powerless, having ceded all their authority to the executive-appointed bureaucracy. The judicial branch is still alive and kicking feebly, but the death or retirement of one conservative justice will put a stop to that. The law enforcement political appointees have become arbitrary in their enforcement of the law and politically motivated. Never has America faced such troubling times. All of this has been accomplished slowly and cautiously to avoid raising the alarm, because the powers involved definitely do not want to raise that alarm.

The only weapon left against the rise of the autocracy is the light of truth. If the vast majority of Americans, your neighbors and coworkers, knew all of this was going on, they wouldn't stand for it. Constitutional amendments would be passed, politicians would be dismissed, and corrupt politicians would be tried and jailed. We can only hope that the sword of truth can yet prevail. However, there is not much time left, and it is time we get to work in earnest.
on "The Rise of Unchecked Presidential Power" "

[ball43 0]

Not sure that one side of the isle gets all the blame as the article claims, but the rest of the argument is timely with TSA's new ability to seemingly violate the 4th Amendment under the claim of increased security.

[jclalor 12]

Blah blah blah blah blah.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Not sure that one side of the isle gets all the blame as the article claims, but the rest of the argument is timely with TSA's new ability to seemingly violate the 4th Amendment under the claim of increased security.

Oh, when the other side is in power their opponents bitch just as loudly.

I, OTOH, hold both groups in utter contempt (for slightly different reasons), and I consider the failure of all parties to uphold the Constitution to be a violation of their oath of office.

If only the issues pointed out in the article were the worst we had to face. If anything, the imbalance in our system of government is symptomatic of the ills to which we are succumbing in stages. The "unsinkable" ship is still afloat, the lights are aglow and the band is playing a rousing rendition of "Closer My God To Thee" - and the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.


BSBD,

Winsor

[sfzombie 3]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
ben franklin
still rings true after 250+ years

http://kitswv.com

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
ben franklin
still rings true after 250+ years

Why would it be true? Because some dead guy said it 200 years ago?
We all give up "essential liberty" in exchange for temporary safety as well as other considerations. We do not have the liberty to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and in return we have the safety of probably never being trampled to death because of it. We gave up the liberty of using whatever manufacturing processes we want in exchange for the safety of a cleaner, healthier environment.
Though I agree with the OP, I do not agree with the quote from BF.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 3,120]

This is indeed a problem. The amazing amount of importance placed on the election of our presidents is emblematic of it. The president, as envisioned by our constitution, is basically a glorified administrator, not the king of the USA. It's understandable why the Constitution was written this way - at the time of its creation, we had had enough of kings. Indeed, one of the reasons Madison argued for a bicameral legislature was to diminish its power; it was thought that two smaller houses would be a better match for the weak office of president as outlined in the US Constitution than one more powerful body.

As time goes on, though, we drift farther and farther from that ideal. The idea that even both houses of Congress could have as much influence as the president is now pretty laughable. In 2003, the president declared war on Iraq - despite it being very clear that that role is fulfilled by Congress. And the republicans, rather than object to the usurping of power that that represented, defended him 100%.

The use of Presidential Signing Statements is another example of growing power within the executive. This is basically a way for a president to modify a law passed by Congress with no oversight by the legislature, and is a power that has no Constitutional backing. It is worth noting that although these have a long history, until 1980 they were basically statements that the president included with the law. In other words, they were rhetorical in purpose and did not alter or mitigate the bill they were attached to.

In some ways this is inevitable. Since our law is based largely on precedent, when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, he did it for all time; there is now a legal precedent for a president to suspend parts of the Constitution if he feels it necessary.

Compounding all this is the effect of the media. Today's audience has a short attention span, and covering senatorial squabbles is beyond what most people who listen to mass media are willing to tolerate. Presidential statements, though, can be condensed into one-sentence sound bites - and indeed most controversy nowadays centers on single sentences. Examples abound for both Obama and Bush.

So what can we do? There are some simple partial solutions. Increased transparency is one, and we shouldn't take "it's bad for national security!" as an excuse for refusing to release decisions or documents.

But in a larger sense probably the biggest thing we can do is, as a people, stop supporting presidents blindly. Stop letting presidents use fear to control the populace. We're really not all that at-risk from the various evils that exist in the world, and we shouldn't cede him power just because we are afraid. Stop blindly supporting presidents just because they have an R or a D after their name. Yes, they may be on "your team" but that doesn't mean what they're doing is right.

Finally we should start paying a lot more attention to local and state elections. If you read political commentary nowadays you'd think that we didn't have states and cities - just one all-powerful federal government. That's become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as that apathy results in poor electoral turnout for state elections and less-competent (and less powerful) local governments.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
ben franklin
still rings true after 250+ years

Why would it be true? Because some dead guy said it 200 years ago?
We all give up "essential liberty" in exchange for temporary safety as well as other considerations. We do not have the liberty to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and in return we have the safety of probably never being trampled to death because of it. We gave up the liberty of using whatever manufacturing processes we want in exchange for the safety of a cleaner, healthier environment.
Though I agree with the OP, I do not agree with the quote from BF.

*rolls eyes*

Just as an FYI, all cats really AREN'T gray in the dark. You can mangle ANY aphorism if you try to stretch it over every conceivable circumstance.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
ben franklin
still rings true after 250+ years

Why would it be true? Because some dead guy said it 200 years ago?
We all give up "essential liberty" in exchange for temporary safety as well as other considerations. We do not have the liberty to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and in return we have the safety of probably never being trampled to death because of it.

Yelling fire in a theater is an essential liberty?

[PiLFy 3]

Quote

Quote

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
ben franklin
still rings true after 250+ years

Why would it be true? Because some dead guy said it 200 years ago?
We all give up "essential liberty" in exchange for temporary safety as well as other considerations. We do not have the liberty to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and in return we have the safety of probably never being trampled to death because of it. We gave up the liberty of using whatever manufacturing processes we want in exchange for the safety of a cleaner, healthier environment.
Though I agree with the OP, I do not agree with the quote from BF.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is not an essential liberty. Benjamin Franklin was a very intelligent man. That's why he's quoted 250+ years later. Do you think anyone will remember YOU that long? His statement is just as true today as it was then. I believe it was he who also said "The tree of liberty must be bled every twenty years." That, to nip corruption in the bud. We are looong overdue.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I believe it was he who also said "The tree of liberty must be bled every twenty years." That, to nip corruption in the bud. We are looong overdue.

You're combining a couple of passages from Jefferson's letter to Smith:

Quote

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
ben franklin
still rings true after 250+ years

Why would it be true? Because some dead guy said it 200 years ago?
We all give up "essential liberty" in exchange for temporary safety as well as other considerations. We do not have the liberty to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and in return we have the safety of probably never being trampled to death because of it.

Yelling fire in a theater is an essential liberty?

Using your physical ability to speak is a right and liberty we are all born with.
Our society has seen fit, with good reason, to place limits on that right.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is not an essential liberty.

Not specifically, no. But talking and communicating is. And we have placed restrictions on those liberties.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Yelling fire in a theater is an essential liberty?

Using your physical ability to speak is a right and liberty we are all born with.
Our society has seen fit, with good reason, to place limits on that right.

No, shouting fire in a dark crowded environment, when there isn't a fire, is an act of terrorism. It has immediate and predictable results. (Probably more so back when this decision was made, but we still occasionally see what happens when there is a fire in a overcrowded club - people get trampled to death)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

What part of "Our society has seen fit, with good reason, to place limits on that right" don't you understand?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

What part of "Our society has seen fit, with good reason, to place limits on that right" don't you understand?

The "good reason" part.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[happythoughts 0]

The best power shift that a president can aide is the
appointment of a SC justice.

It doesn't matter what laws are passed by Congress if
the SC interprets them to apply in tandem with their goals.

The SC has been stepping on rulings of lower courts
and trashing states rights for years. The legislation of
states is valueless.

[pirana 0]

As long as we continue to have elections with more than one candidate for the job, the use of the word dictate and all of it's derivatives is a bit hyperbolic; and an indicator that the user is a highly biased shit-stirring lackey for one party or the other.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[funjumper101 15]

A load of bullshit from a right wing conservative site.

Shrub did more on these lines than Obama ever could.

Stupid right wing moron reposting lies again.

Don't you asholes ever even TRY to think critically?

Apparently not.