King Obama Excited by Power, Ignores Legal Restraints

Posted on May 23, 2011

0


In the following article, Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner gives his views of Barack Obama’s power.  I think he is governing not as a president but as a Ruler. This ruler doesn’t have to obey the constitution or have any legal restraint. That has been obvious since day one of the Obama administration and it gets worse every day. Obama’s NLRB’s  is stopping BOEING from improving their business, by moving to another state. When will this be ruled  not legal. What surprises me mostis that no one has stepped forward to stop these Obama Illegalities. Where is the Oversight? Where is Congress? Where are conservative legal groups? SHAW

“There are some who question the scale of our ambitions,”  Obama : “Who suggest that our system cannot  tolerate too many big plans.” About these “cynics,” Obama responded: “The ground  has shifted beneath them …. the stale political arguments that have consumed  us for so long no longer apply.”

By Timothy Carney…..President Obama launched a U.S. war in Libya two months  ago with no congressional approval. Under the Constitution and under the War  Powers Act, which allows the president to wage defensive wars for up to 60 days  without prior approval, Obama probably broke the law.

Now that 60 days have passed since the United States  joined the hostilities, Obama’s war is more clearly illegal. But nobody should  expect this to matter to a president with a long record of disregarding legal  and constitutional limits on presidential and federal power.

Presidential arrogation of power is nothing new.  President George W. Bush’s lawyer John Yoo declared in a post-9/11 memo that no  congressional “statute …. can place any limits on the president’s  determinations” about how to fight terrorism, proclaiming such decisions “are  for the president alone to make.”

But Barack Obama ran against this imperial mind-set.  On war powers, he said, “The president does not have power under the  Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that  does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the  nation.”

More broadly, he declared, “No more ignoring the law  when it’s inconvenient. That is not who we are. . . . . We will again set an  example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn  rulers.”

Now that he’s president, Obama apparently believes the  inverse: Stubborn rulers should not be subject to the whims of the law.

We shouldn’t be surprised, considering the truth  behind the observation from a character in Robert Frost’s poem “Build Soil”:  “[W]hat are wars but politics transformed from chronic to acute and bloody?”  Obama is waging war the same way he has waged politics.

Obama in 2009 threw out bankruptcy law and precedent  when he handed ownership of Chrysler to his political patrons, the United Auto  Workers, publicly and privately threatening the creditors who objected.

Obama’s National Labor Relations Board has gotten in  the game by blocking Boeing from making its jets at its new factory in South  Carolina.

This administration regularly flouts and bends its own  ethics rules. Lobbyists fresh from Google and Goldman Sachs came to the White  House and helped craft policies directly affecting their former employers —  sometimes in concert with their old lobbyist colleagues. H&R Block’s chief  executive officer joined the administration and drafted tax-preparation  regulations that help H&R Block.

More importantly, Obama seems to regard the  Constitution’s limits as quaint. We see it in his rhetoric and his actions.

“There are some who question the scale of our  ambitions,” Obama said in his inaugural address, “Who suggest that our system  cannot tolerate too many big plans.” About these “cynics,” Obama responded: “The  ground has shifted beneath them …. the stale political arguments that have  consumed us for so long no longer apply.” One such “stale political argument”  checking politicians’ “ambitions” is apparently the notion that the federal  executive’s powers are limited and enumerated.

Obamacare’s linchpin — a federal requirement that  every person buy and hold health insurance — is a fine example of Obama’s  disdain for the notion of enumerated powers. The administration’s lawyers have  their constitutional defenses in court, but those arguments are more semantical  than sincere. The telltale is the blatant contradiction between the politicians’  claims (it’s not a tax!) and the lawyers’ claims (it’s only a tax!).

Elena Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court pick, refused, as  solicitor general, to answer whether the Commerce Clause would justify a federal  mandate that everyone eat broccoli. In the name of hope and change, all is  permitted.

It’s not just the administration. Disdain for  constitutional limits on federal power is widespread on the Left. The derogatory  term “Tenther” was coined in 2009 (invoking the “birther” conspiracy theory that  Obama is not an American citizen) to mock those conservatives and libertarians  who want more deference to the 10th Amendment’s declaration that “The powers not  delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the  States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Advocating stricter adherence of the Constitution will  get you called racist. Al Gore once said, in effect, that a “strict  constructionist” is someone who sees blacks as three-fifths of a  person.

Start with an administration set on “changing  America,” and that rejects strict construction, the 10th Amendment, and the  separation of powers, and you get what we have in Libya today: an illegal war,  and a White House that doesn’t mind.

Washington Examiner:  http://washingtonexaminer.com/

Advertisements
Posted in: NEWS SOURCES