The President Makes A Grab For Dictatorial Power

The U.S. is at "a constitutional tipping point" and "in the midst of a constitutional crisis." Has President Obama unilaterally overturned the constitutional framework of three branches that is the basis of our unique and successful system of self-government?

That question is not just partisan bickering by Republicans and Tea Party activists. It was spoken in all seriousness in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by a distinguished constitutional law professor who voted for Obama.

Jonathan Turley of George Washington University said that the "massive gravitational shift of authority to the executive branch" is unconstitutional and threatens the stability of our separation of powers and checks and balances.

We can point to a few moves in that direction under previous presidents, but the current shift of power is proceeding at "an alarming rate," while (and just as ominous) the other branches (Congress and the courts) are "mute and passive" in the face of Obama's unprecedented expansion of executive branch power.

Our separation of powers was designed to serve as the primary protection of individual rights because it is supposed to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch. Turley warned that Obama has become "the very danger that separation of powers was designed to avoid," and we should not "take from future generations a system that has safeguarded our freedoms for over 250 years."

Our Constitution gives the power to declare war exclusively to Congress, but Obama thinks he can make a "unilateral commitment of our country to war." Turley explained that Obama "funded an entire military campaign (in Libya) by shifting billions in money and equipment without asking Congress for a dollar." He just transferred the money from another account, boasting that he "alone would define what is a war."

Obama is eager to get federal mitts on school curriculum so the screws can be tightened on what kids learn and (just as important) what they do not learn. The previous law to attempt to control education, No Child Left Behind, didn't fit into his plan, so he just nullified it by a series of unilateral waivers and is now welcoming nationalization of curriculum by Common Core.

When Obama, in his State of the Union address, announced he would take unilateral action "with or without Congress," Turley expected "an outcry" from his congressional audience, but that didn't happen. Where was Joe "You Lie" Wilson when we needed him to call out "you are unconstitutional"?

It is clear Obama is trying to rule the country from the executive branch only. As Turley pointed out, "Congress is becoming marginalized" by "hundreds of thousands of regulations that are promulgated without direct congressional action and outside the system created by the framers."

Spelling out the problem further, Turley said, "a fourth branch has emerged in our tripartite system. ... The vast majority of 'laws' ... are not passed by Congress." This "has accelerated at an alarming rate" and caused "a massive gravitational shift."


Print this post

Do you like this post?

Showing 7 reactions

commented 2014-03-14 13:18:42 -0400 · Flag
JC writes:

I dont disagree, its just a slippery rope.
commented 2014-03-14 13:17:04 -0400 · Flag
D.P. writes:

Wanting the best for your children is not tantamount to wanting your 40-yr.old children to walk around with effective passifiers in their mouths.

Quality of life aspirations doesn’t have to mean rentier/dullard aspirations.
commented 2014-03-14 13:16:18 -0400 · Flag
JC writes:

“I must study politics & war that my sons may havethe liberty to study mathematics & philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics & philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, & agriculture in order to give their childrena right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry & porcelain.”

The above passage is from a letter that John Adams had written while in Paris as Geo Washington’s Secy of State to his family back in Mass as a statement on the purpose of his life. It became a kind of summons for the Adams clan. By the time it reached his great, great grandson, “Henry” he was living the rentier luxe-life in Paris. What are we to infer from this? That the Adamses had gone to seed? Or that ever wealthier America was able to transform society where many who came from modest backgrounds could lead such lives? All parents want the best for their children, it is hard to draw a line in the sand.
commented 2014-03-14 13:14:09 -0400 · Flag
D.P. writes:

This exchange has encapsulated ALL OF IT. Right under my nose, in the last ~25 years, the country has been IMBECILIFIED, INFANTILIZED, INDOCTRINATED, and made to love their DEPENDENCY on the JAILOR.

game-set-match. To the nanny-statists.
commented 2014-03-14 13:10:58 -0400 · Flag
JC writes:

why wouldn’t millenials be even more liberal, they have been raised in a nanny state from helicopter parents but honestly, can yiu blame the parents? case in point, as a newly arrived 7 yr old immigrant, w out speaking a word of english, I walked ~1 mile each way to school every morning & home, while holding my 5 yr old sister’s hand!!! I was latchkey & fancy free. Let us look at modern day. In NY state today & I suppose many (all?) other states, it is illegal to leave a 12yr old & under alone & unsupervised. So what are parents supposed to do? they drive junior to school. One of the many changes made over last generation. My GenX wife, also walked to school unsupervised, which is why I draw that generational line which began ~1991.
commented 2014-03-14 13:09:13 -0400 · Flag
Ed K. writes:

Its not just Obama is all career pols in power. They figured out the solution to stay in power. Its Scary – we need term limits on all branches of government. No more than 20 years in congress. I just read that the younger generation (millenials) are more liberal and progressive than any prior generation since the 60/70s so a whole generation that is now being hurt by these policies is voting in leaders that assure their own mediocrity and debt laden stagnation. What do we expect from a demographic that gets their news from John Stewart.
commented 2014-03-14 13:07:58 -0400 · Flag
A.R. writes:

Holy God…this is “The Blueprint”…Baraka and his minions are using the “Rules For Radicals” Playbook step by step to bring Socialism to the U.S.A.! (The blame lies with the White-Guilt-besotted, indoctrinated imbeciles and low-information parasites that voted for him … any sentient and educated adult could see through this phony usurper in 30 seconds … the man is so transparently an Affirmative Action surfer … an utter mediocrity … without his pigment he is but a forgotten local yokel gas-bag in some flea-pit Chicago neighborhood. )

Paul David (Saul) Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book “Rules for Radicals”.
There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a socialist/communist state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare: “Control healthcare and you control the people”
2) Poverty: “Increase the Poverty level as high as possible.” Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them
to live.
3) Debt: “Increase the national debt to an unsustainable level." That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control: “Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government." That way you are able to create a police state – total local control.
5) Welfare: “Take control of every aspect of their lives" (Food, Livestock, Housing, and Income).
6) Education: “Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.”
7) Religion: “Remove faith in God from the Government and school.”
8) Class Warfare: “Divide the people into the wealthy against the poor. Racially divide." This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to Tax the wealthy with full support of the voting poor.

Does any of this sound familiar?