Recently, the EPA announced that it intends to implement and enforce "cap and trade" regulation of carbon emissions on the several states, after Congress failed to pass a law explicitly grant them that authority. This comes on the heels of the FCC deciding it had the authority to regulate the internet, again after Congress failed to pass a law explicitly grant them that authority.
Now, it must be remembered that the EPA and the FCC, like all other agencies of the federal bureaucracy, are part of the Executive Branch of the government. That means that they act as extensions of the president, acting in his name and carrying out his will and exercising his authority. So these moves are, in essence, President Obama simply deciding that he doesn't need the assent of Congress to expand his authority, but can do so by simple proclamation and executive fiat.
That sounded familiar. I was certain that that sort of thing had happened before, but I couldn't quite place it. And then it came to me:
Now, it must be remembered that the EPA and the FCC, like all other agencies of the federal bureaucracy, are part of the Executive Branch of the government. That means that they act as extensions of the president, acting in his name and carrying out his will and exercising his authority. So these moves are, in essence, President Obama simply deciding that he doesn't need the assent of Congress to expand his authority, but can do so by simple proclamation and executive fiat.
That sounded familiar. I was certain that that sort of thing had happened before, but I couldn't quite place it. And then it came to me:
Oh, yes. Now it comes back to me.
The hardest to remember part of the Declaration of Independence was the "laundry list" of complaints against the King. Oh, everyone the least bit familiar with the Declaration remember that it's there, but it's so comprehensive and detailed that few can recall the particulars. I chose to refresh myself with the specific grievances, and it struck me how familiar some of those were.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. He seems to think that means he runs the state. But the EPA is telling him no, he doesn't get to run his state. He has to abide by their laws -- even their laws that aren't laws, but regulations they passed when Congress wouldn't pass a law.
Jan Brewer is Perry's almost-neighbor in Arizona. She's that state's governor. She has what some would say is Perry's opposite situation -- she WANTS to enforce federal laws and regulations, specifically the ones about illegal aliens. But the Obama administration says no, only the feds have that right -- and if they refuse to enforce the law, that's just too damned bad.
And don't even get me started on the Justice Department scandal regarding voting rights and voter intimidation. The Obama/Holder Justice Department has pretty much decided that it's simply not possible for blacks to intimidate white voters, so they essentially dropped their case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia -- even though they had already won the case in court.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
This one's a little trickier. What Obama has "endeavoured" to do is to stop any attempt at toughening laws regarding illegal immigration -- or even enforce existing laws. He holds that hostage for a nebulous concept called "comprehensive immigration reform," meaning "you'll get what you want once you give me everything I want -- maybe." Meanwhile, he's tried to push his own immigration "reforms" -- like the odious DREAM Act -- through without so much as a by-your-leave nod to "comprehensive immigration reform."
So, he's essentially working to prevent the orderly, legal population of states, naturalization of foreigners, and obstructed their legal migrations hither, in favor of toadying to the illegal immigrant lobby.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
I've lost count of how many "Czars" -- unelected, usually un-vetted, unapproved commissars in charge of whole swaths of federal policy -- Obama has named. And he's undercut his legally-structured Cabinet in some truly innovative ways. Secretary of State Clinton saw two of her key areas of responsibility -- Iran/Afghanistan and the UN -- taken away from her before her seat warm, as the former was put in the hands of a Special Envoy. In the latter case, the Ambassador to the UN -- nominally Clinton's underling -- was elevated to her peer as a Cabinet-level officer. And Judd Gregg turned down Secretary of Commerce when Obama announced that the Census was being taken away from that department and instead overseen directly by the White House's political wing.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
How many treaties that Congress refused to ratify has Obama announced he intends to follow anyway?
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
Through increased regulation and restrictions and whatnot. The new laws regarding lead content threatened to shut down yard sales, for god's sake. The bans on offshore drilling (real and threatened) have made us even more dependent on foreign oil, and limited our ability to barter on the global energy markets.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
Here he gets credit for trying. Is the individual mandate for insurance that's part of ObamaCare a tax or not? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, depending on what argument they need to make before the courts at the time. And I seem to recall certain Democrats in Congress threatening to bypass that whole tedious "voting" thing and simply declare that they "deem it passed." That strikes me as "close enough for government work."
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
I'm not too terribly upset about this one, because the "us" is "Guantanamo detainees," but Obama made a key part of his campaign a pledge to shut it down and bring the prisoners here for civilian trial. I thought that was a bad idea, and still do, but he made that promise -- and halfway through his first (and, I hope, only) term, he's done absolutely nothing about it.
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
Guantanamo again. As before, I'm not greatly troubled by it, but it's pretty damned important to his base.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Strike "merciless Indian Savages," and insert "Muslim extremist terrorists." And he hasn't so much as "excited" them, as tolerated them and turned a blind eye to their menace. Note how many of the recent attacks and scares came from American citizens (the Fort Hood shootings, the Times Square bombing, and whatnot) -- that certainly qualifies as "domestic insurrections. And their "known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."
King George III had his excuses. He was the head of a global empire, he was distracted with a more immediate war with France, and he was... well, he was nuts. The guy had serious mental health issues, and very well might have been clinically insane for large portions of his reign.
What's your excuse, Mr. President?
The hardest to remember part of the Declaration of Independence was the "laundry list" of complaints against the King. Oh, everyone the least bit familiar with the Declaration remember that it's there, but it's so comprehensive and detailed that few can recall the particulars. I chose to refresh myself with the specific grievances, and it struck me how familiar some of those were.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. He seems to think that means he runs the state. But the EPA is telling him no, he doesn't get to run his state. He has to abide by their laws -- even their laws that aren't laws, but regulations they passed when Congress wouldn't pass a law.
Jan Brewer is Perry's almost-neighbor in Arizona. She's that state's governor. She has what some would say is Perry's opposite situation -- she WANTS to enforce federal laws and regulations, specifically the ones about illegal aliens. But the Obama administration says no, only the feds have that right -- and if they refuse to enforce the law, that's just too damned bad.
And don't even get me started on the Justice Department scandal regarding voting rights and voter intimidation. The Obama/Holder Justice Department has pretty much decided that it's simply not possible for blacks to intimidate white voters, so they essentially dropped their case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia -- even though they had already won the case in court.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
This one's a little trickier. What Obama has "endeavoured" to do is to stop any attempt at toughening laws regarding illegal immigration -- or even enforce existing laws. He holds that hostage for a nebulous concept called "comprehensive immigration reform," meaning "you'll get what you want once you give me everything I want -- maybe." Meanwhile, he's tried to push his own immigration "reforms" -- like the odious DREAM Act -- through without so much as a by-your-leave nod to "comprehensive immigration reform."
So, he's essentially working to prevent the orderly, legal population of states, naturalization of foreigners, and obstructed their legal migrations hither, in favor of toadying to the illegal immigrant lobby.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
I've lost count of how many "Czars" -- unelected, usually un-vetted, unapproved commissars in charge of whole swaths of federal policy -- Obama has named. And he's undercut his legally-structured Cabinet in some truly innovative ways. Secretary of State Clinton saw two of her key areas of responsibility -- Iran/Afghanistan and the UN -- taken away from her before her seat warm, as the former was put in the hands of a Special Envoy. In the latter case, the Ambassador to the UN -- nominally Clinton's underling -- was elevated to her peer as a Cabinet-level officer. And Judd Gregg turned down Secretary of Commerce when Obama announced that the Census was being taken away from that department and instead overseen directly by the White House's political wing.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
How many treaties that Congress refused to ratify has Obama announced he intends to follow anyway?
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
Through increased regulation and restrictions and whatnot. The new laws regarding lead content threatened to shut down yard sales, for god's sake. The bans on offshore drilling (real and threatened) have made us even more dependent on foreign oil, and limited our ability to barter on the global energy markets.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
Here he gets credit for trying. Is the individual mandate for insurance that's part of ObamaCare a tax or not? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, depending on what argument they need to make before the courts at the time. And I seem to recall certain Democrats in Congress threatening to bypass that whole tedious "voting" thing and simply declare that they "deem it passed." That strikes me as "close enough for government work."
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
I'm not too terribly upset about this one, because the "us" is "Guantanamo detainees," but Obama made a key part of his campaign a pledge to shut it down and bring the prisoners here for civilian trial. I thought that was a bad idea, and still do, but he made that promise -- and halfway through his first (and, I hope, only) term, he's done absolutely nothing about it.
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
Guantanamo again. As before, I'm not greatly troubled by it, but it's pretty damned important to his base.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Strike "merciless Indian Savages," and insert "Muslim extremist terrorists." And he hasn't so much as "excited" them, as tolerated them and turned a blind eye to their menace. Note how many of the recent attacks and scares came from American citizens (the Fort Hood shootings, the Times Square bombing, and whatnot) -- that certainly qualifies as "domestic insurrections. And their "known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."
King George III had his excuses. He was the head of a global empire, he was distracted with a more immediate war with France, and he was... well, he was nuts. The guy had serious mental health issues, and very well might have been clinically insane for large portions of his reign.
What's your excuse, Mr. President?
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Politics
Comments (22)
I'm not so sure about "Tran... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Olsoljer | December 29, 2010 5:58 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I'm not so sure about "Transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences." Early on there were rumors that Bush and Cheney might be sent to the World Court for war crimes etc, with no firm denial by the One. Inclusion of a foreign country (Mexico) in a lawsuit against Arizona with no outright rejection by the One might be an indication of the Ones inclination to allow foreign governments intervention in American law. Add to that the tendency of US judges to take sharia law into consideration while trying "honor killings" and other transgressions in muslim court cases is also treading a very fine line.
1. Posted by Olsoljer | December 29, 2010 5:58 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 05:58
2. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | December 29, 2010 7:02 AM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
puppyblender
I was told if I voted for John McCain there would be a unilateral executive who would ignore the will of the people as expressed through Congress and trample on individual and states rights... and they were right
/puppyblender
2. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | December 29, 2010 7:02 AM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 07:02
3. Posted by WildWillie | December 29, 2010 9:06 AM | Score: 13 (17 votes cast)
The dulled and uneducated masses have no idea what is going on. As long as their little bubble is okay, then that is fine with them.
I would say to the new congress: Cut the executive branch's budget so enforcement is impossible. ww
3. Posted by WildWillie | December 29, 2010 9:06 AM |
Score: 13 (17 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 09:06
4. Posted by irongrampa | December 29, 2010 9:33 AM | Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
I'd suggest, if you already haven't, reading Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps someone in this admin did, and considered it a good game plan.
This course HAS to be amended, continuing will inevitably lead to the same ending as the book depicts.
And that would be a dismal end to what is the grandest experiment in governance ever devised.
4. Posted by irongrampa | December 29, 2010 9:33 AM |
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 09:33
5. Posted by tomg51 | December 29, 2010 9:35 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
This will make Texas all clean and shiny.
I'm sure there won't be any unintended consequences for the rest of the country.
5. Posted by tomg51 | December 29, 2010 9:35 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 09:35
6. Posted by Big Mo | December 29, 2010 9:59 AM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Excellent, Jay.
Now, if you would do a follow-up piece along the same lines with the Constitution... (hint, hint).
Unlike the Patriots of 1776 (and 1773 :) we're not engaged in armed revolution against the government, but rather a political and social revolution against the arrogant political/ruling class whose trashing of the Constitution is actually far worse than the charges that Adams, Franklin and company made against the English crown.
6. Posted by Big Mo | December 29, 2010 9:59 AM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 09:59
7. Posted by GarandFan | December 29, 2010 10:35 AM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
All Hail, Obama!
7. Posted by GarandFan | December 29, 2010 10:35 AM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 10:35
8. Posted by Pile of Pooh | December 29, 2010 10:40 AM | Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
As WildWillie wrote above, the key is for Congress to defund (or refuse to fund, actually) all this executive order nonsense. That's one of the key "checks and balances" in the system.
It's also what will make or break the new House. If they fall down on the job and fund some of this odious executive garbage as a way to make political deals for themselves, they'll find their asses on the curb in 2012. A lot of them still don't "get it," and I'm afraid it will take several cycles of election bloodbaths in the House before they finally wake up and say, "Ooooh! You mean CONSERVATIVE! Okay, now we understand."
We as voters have no direct control over the executive, and limited influence on the Senate. That is by design. But we exercise enormous influence over the House, who are the pursers of the Republic. That is also by design. Do not lay down and think your job is done after November of 2010. Vigilance is required. Keep their feet to the fire, or we'll find ourselves roasting in it.
8. Posted by Pile of Pooh | December 29, 2010 10:40 AM |
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 10:40
9. Posted by Andrew X | December 29, 2010 11:18 AM | Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
The incoming House GOP has made the magnificent decision to read the entire Constitution of the United States on the floor of the House as their first order of business.
This makes me realize they would do very well to read the Declaration of Independence as well, and do so first and foremost.
That would be chronologically correct, and, more importantly, it would remind everyone of just why that constitution was written as it was.
I always did see that DoI "laundry list" as just sort of a legitimate but inelegant list of gripes and complaints, as opposed the the inspiring preamble, but Jay's post really does point out that much of it is well worth reminding not just ourselves, but our astonishingly arrogant ruling classes as well.
Hey GOP, read them both. There may be other business that is AS important, but there damn sure isn't any that is MORE important.
9. Posted by Andrew X | December 29, 2010 11:18 AM |
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 11:18
10. Posted by john | December 29, 2010 1:24 PM | Score: -11 (19 votes cast)
The movie was actually called "The Presidency of George W. Bush", and funny, I thought you liked the ending. For eight years the right argued that the President was empowered to act against the Constitution, Congressional statute, and will of the people whenever he thought it necessary. So you were for it before you were against it. Reap, sow, chickens, roost, goose, gander, etc.
10. Posted by john | December 29, 2010 1:24 PM |
Score: -11 (19 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 13:24
11. Posted by 914 | December 29, 2010 1:30 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Have another sip john. I know denial is a harsh reality for you to live in.
11. Posted by 914 | December 29, 2010 1:30 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 13:30
12. Posted by sam | December 29, 2010 1:46 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
John:
Did you just make up the crap, or do you have any evidence?
12. Posted by sam | December 29, 2010 1:46 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 13:46
13. Posted by BlueNight | December 29, 2010 3:05 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
"and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,"
My first thought was the Mexican drug gangs and our porous Southern border. (I'm in New Mexico between Arizona and Texas.)
13. Posted by BlueNight | December 29, 2010 3:05 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 15:05
14. Posted by Andrew X | December 29, 2010 3:20 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Folks, remember that 'john' hails from the "reality-based community". You know, the one that told us that Barack Obama was one of, if not the, "Smartest Person Ever To Assume The Office Of President".
Yeah, that one.
14. Posted by Andrew X | December 29, 2010 3:20 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 15:20
15. Posted by Jim Addison | December 29, 2010 3:22 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Far be it from me to say, "I told you so," BUT if we had hanged Waxman, Frank, Conyers, and Pelosi back when I first suggested it, we wouldn't be in this mess today.
;-)
15. Posted by Jim Addison | December 29, 2010 3:22 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 15:22
16. Posted by john | December 29, 2010 4:28 PM | Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
Did you just make up the crap, or do you have any evidence?
I don't have time to educate someone who doesn't even read the news, but I'll throw you a few bones:
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205205,00.html
articles.cnn.com/2006-08-17/politics/domesticspying.lawsuit_1_nsa-federal-court-eavesdropping-program
www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/opinion/31bamford.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
16. Posted by john | December 29, 2010 4:28 PM |
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 16:28
17. Posted by john | December 29, 2010 4:30 PM | Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
the one that told us that Barack Obama was one of, if not the, "Smartest Person Ever To Assume The Office Of President".
Nope, wasn't me. But nice ad hominem. Actually, I take that back. An ad hominem is usually somehow related to the topic.
17. Posted by john | December 29, 2010 4:30 PM |
Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 16:30
18. Posted by Andrew X | December 29, 2010 6:02 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
John, "the one" refers to the smarmily self-identified "reality-based community", of whose denizens I had many an encounter with during the Bush era, it does not refer to any individual speaker, including yourself. I'm not saying you said it, I am saying that vast numbers of people who speak as you do now in fact did say just that, or like it.
Of course Bush was a "miserable failure" and "dumb as a post." Such people love to list the dumbest Presidents of the past half century or so. Who are they? Well, in no particular order, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower. Uh huh. Gee, they all have something in common.... something..... I'm not sure what it is, but I'll pin it down eventually, I'm sure.
You have no idea, no idea at all, how much credibility our so-called "intellectual" classes have blown telling us how smart Barack Obama is, when there is not a scintilla of evidence that he is any smarter than you, me, him or her, just a bunch of academics and media types who say that he is because they desperately want it to be so. And Obama has built a career being just what such people want him to be, not on virtually any accomplishments at all. And Bush's post-Presidency ratings are rising and will continue to do so, exactly the opposite of what all these people sold us.
Credibility is tough. Once you blow it, it is a long, long, long time coming back. And Fox's ratings, the New York Times financial shape, Newsweek's one-dollar sale, and the bursting academic bubble tell the story louder than anything else.
Speak all you want, please. But no one is listening any more. It's done.
18. Posted by Andrew X | December 29, 2010 6:02 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 18:02
19. Posted by Woop | December 29, 2010 6:37 PM | Score: -2 (12 votes cast)
John in #10 above is right. No wonder Jay Tea has "seen this movie before." Bush had more czars than Obama.
But it's much easier to just "lose count" and spew bullshit instead.
Rinse, repeat, reap, sow, lie, bullshit.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/
19. Posted by Woop | December 29, 2010 6:37 PM |
Score: -2 (12 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 18:37
20. Posted by john | December 29, 2010 7:34 PM | Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Wow, Andrew, you're having a mighty interesting conversation about... well, someone, I guess. Certainly not me, nor anyone on this thread that I can observe. Keep going, though. You seem to be having fun on your own.
20. Posted by john | December 29, 2010 7:34 PM |
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2010 19:34
21. Posted by gary gulrud | December 30, 2010 8:48 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Now yer talkin. Dear Leader will not endure(nor conceivably pay for) his 'day' in court.
21. Posted by gary gulrud | December 30, 2010 8:48 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on December 30, 2010 08:48
22. Posted by PHDinCT | December 30, 2010 11:27 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
OMG
u mean that Obama's NOT the ONE?!
now who is then?
Well, then who is this guy Adams? U mean Thomas Jefferson said we should have a revolution all the time? What's a Federalist? There's nothing in the Constitution about my Right to Privacy?...
No, in SocStudies we just studied the Mayans again and learned about tribes in the Amazon.
22. Posted by PHDinCT | December 30, 2010 11:27 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on December 30, 2010 11:27