President Obama, a man who taught the Constitution for ten years and who has clearly articulated the systems of checks and balances designed by our nation’s Founders, seems to have expanded his own view of Presidential power since taking that office. His new line of reasoning says:
“But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. (Applause.) I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people.”[i]
Citing this “obligation,” President Obama effected the so-called “Recess Appointment” of Richard Cordray on January 4, 2012, as the first Director of the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The reality however – according to the Heritage Foundation – was that the Senate was not in “Recess,” but in a “Pro Forma” session, as proven by the fact that during the “Pro Forma” session, they had successfully passed the President’s two month extension of the payroll tax cut.[ii] In effect, Obama was usurping the authority of the legislative branch in order to avoid the requirement of Cordray’s Senate confirmation.
Is this activity consistent with our image of American Democracy?
According to a recent New York Times article by Peter Baker, the President has now signed into law, a bill that gives him the right to immediately appoint scores of presidential appointees without Senate confirmation. While many would agree that this bipartisan bill further erodes our system of checks and balances, few should be surprised. We might even argue that the new law merely gives legitimacy to a practice already implemented by Obama – a practice exemplified by his appointment of Richard Cordray.
While Obama seems to have manufactured a “Recess Appointment” scenario in order to appoint Richard Cordray as the first Director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the problem appears much worse than a single abusive action to avoid Senate Confirmation hearings on one appointee. Indeed, in an interview with Rob Quirk, of KOAA, Colorado Springs, Colorado, the President commented easily on what has become his increasingly familiar position:
“Well, what we’re going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill.”[i]
While this may seem very action oriented, it also provides a clear distinction between the prerogatives of a President and the prerogatives of a Monarch. If every President had the prerogative to decide when and why to circumvent congressional authority, our Democracy would soon be a historical footnote. A vote for Obama in 2012 will take us one step closer to that day.
During his campaign for the Presidency in 2008, then Senator Obama was asked by a member of the audience: “When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use Presidential Signage to get your way?” His one word answer was “Yes.” His follow-up explanation however, drove the point home, that this was an unconstitutional and reprehensible act for any President. In his own words:
“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there would be checks and balances. You don’t want a President that’s too powerful, or a Congress that’s too powerful, or Courts that are too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’ job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it, or he can sign it. But, what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed, by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way, or that way.’ That’s not part of his power. But, this is part of the whole theory of George Bush – that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress. All right?”[i]
Very strong language indeed for a President who boasts an ability and intention to go around Congress, and who noted in signing into law the National Defense Authorization Act, that he disagreed with 14 sections of the bill, saying:
“…should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.”[ii]
In still another of the 19 signing statements issued by President Obama thru the end of 2011, Obama blocked the defunding of four of his “Czar” positions, stating that:
“Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”[iii]
Which of the campaign promises Obama makes in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential election will be as solid as his assurances against “Signing Statements”? Which other Constitutional principles will he defend with equal respect and passion?
[i] Senator Barack Obama, (2008), Doug Powers (Oct. 28, 2011), Michelle Malkin web-site, Charles Rangel: Obama Working Around Congress is Okay Because of the Gridlock, video in article posted by “brianamburgey”, Obama on Presidential Signing Statements, retrieved January 6, 2012, from http://michellemalkin.com/2011/10/28/charles-rangel-gridlock/
In early June, 2010, in a dramatic moment during the Gulf oil spill operations, Obama made the unexpected admission that his powers were “not limitless.”[i] A few months later, in October, 2010, he told radio personality Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo, that:
“…I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen.” [ii]
A few nights later he told supporters at a Democratic Dinner that Healthcare Reform took time, because this is:
“…not a monarchy we live in. This is a democracy.”[iii]
On February 22, 2012, back with Univision’s Los Angeles based Sotelo show, Obama again lamented the powerlessness of his Presidency under Constitutional restraints, saying:
“Piolin, I would only have broken my promise [on comprehensive immigration reform] if I hadn’t tried. But ultimately, I’m one man. You know, we live in a democracy. We don’t live in a monarchy. I’m not the king. I’m the president. And so, I can only implement those laws that are passed through Congress.”[iv]
All of this, of course, is his “Go To” rhetoric when explaining away his failure to achieve bipartisan consensus and legislation. Still, it’s interesting that he seems so consistently focused on monarchies and kingships, because while he claims we’re not a monarchy and that he’s not a king, he seems to have no problem playing the role.
At a Las Vegas campaign event on Oct. 24, 2011, President Obama told his audience that:
“…I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress.”[v]
On Oct. 26, 2011, at still another campaign opportunity at the University of Colorado, President Obama declared:
“We can’t wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won’t act, I will.
“…And I’ve told my administration we’re going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress.”[vi]
On Nov. 2, 2011, in a speech at Georgetown Waterfront Park, Obama told prospective 2012 voters:
“We can’t wait for Congress to do its job. If they won’t act, I will.”[vii]
On January 4, 2012, during a speech at Shaker Heights High School in Shaker Heights, Ohio, President Obama told a large Democrat audience:
“When Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them.”[viii]
On Feb. 21, 2012, Obama said:
“Now, whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe [Biden] and I, we’re going to act.”[ix]
On Feb. 23, 2012, at another campaign event at the University of Miami, President Obama again stated – and both unbelievably and hypocritically, given the subject of energy independence – that:
“With or without this Congress, I will continue to do whatever I can to develop every source of American energy so our future isn’t controlled by events on the other side of the world.”[x]
Yet, in his restrictions on drilling and his disapproval of a much needed pipeline, he all but guarantees the control of our future by “events on the other side of the world.”
Meanwhile, President Obama had no problem bypassing the U.S. Senate and using the pretext of “recess appointments” to install Richard Cordray as head of his new Financial Protection Bureau, or to appoint three new members to the National Labor Relations Board.[xi]
He had no problem taking the country to war against Libya without Congressional approval[xii] – and his Communication Director warns us that our problems require:
“‘bold, bipartisan action in Congress’ but that Mr. Obama ‘believes we cannot wait, so he will act where they won’t.’”[xiii]
Let’s see…Democracy…Constitution…eliminating the role of congress…Might this be the equivalent of a Monarchy?
Maxine Waters: Wall Street “Shaking in their Boots”
If there were ever a need to explain the importance of maintaining a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-CA) has given it to us.
At a California Democratic Convention, Waters told her audience:
“…and guess what. Let me let you in on a secret. I am the senior most person serving on the Financial Services Committee. Barney Frank is about to retire and guess who’s shaking in their boots – the too big to fail banks and financial institutions and all of Wall Street, because Maxine Waters is going to be the next Chair of the Financial Services Committee.”[i]
For those who may have forgotten, this is the same Maxine Waters who told an oil company executive that she would be about “…taking over and the government running all of your companies.”[ii]
[ii] Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), (May, 2008), originally broadcast on The Fox Report, posted on YouTube.com on May 23, 2008, by “ElephantOwnersDotCom,” Maxine Waters wants to “Socialize” Oil Companies, retrieved January 28, 2011 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ
While Nation of Islam leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan, once referred to Obama as the Messiah,[i]we never expected a member of Congress to claim the opposite of leading Republicans. But, once again, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has defied all expectations, in noting that:
“We’ve got to take back the House. I saw pictures of Boehner and Kantor on our screens. Don’t ever let me see again in life, those Republicans in our Hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are Demons! These are Legislators who are destroying this Country…”[ii]
It’s interesting to consider the backlash had such a statement been made by any member of the Republican Party against Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, not to mention against any black member of Congress.
Welcome to the Obama era.
[i] Minister Louis Farrakhan, (Oct 9, 2008), quoted in World Net Daily web-site, Farrakhan on Obama: ‘The Messiah is absolutely speaking’, retrieved February 19, 2012 from http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/77539/
During his 2008 campaign, Senator Obama claimed kinship with a number of very famous people, including actor Brad Pitt.[1] As we honor our nation on this July 4th, please take a few moments and read again, one of our greatest documents; written, signed, distributed and defended by some of our bravest citizens. Could our current president claim kinship with any of these inspired Americans? Interestingly, he does number six U.S. Presidents among his cousins – one of whom he has treated most shabbily: George W. Bush. [2]
When President Obama says America is not a Christian nation, perhaps he should read this Declaration as one of the best fact checking mechanisms available. Does Obama believe he derives his “…just powers from the consent of the governed…?” If he did, perhaps he would be far more concerned about working with, rather than around our Congress. Perhaps he would show greater respect to Americans who disagree with his policies, rather than attempting to publicly ridicule them.
We know it would be ridiculous to compare President Obama to a King. Yet, how striking the similarity between the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence and the struggle that has played out between our own federal government and the state of Arizona.
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”
To be sure, we are a very long way from experiencing the government abuses borne by our forefathers. Still, an imaginative mind might find a few other startling similarities in this document.
Thank God for this Declaration and for the long line of brave, committed Americans who, throughout our history, have placed their “Lives,” their “Fortunes” and their “Sacred Honor” on the line to preserve it. Thank God for a system in which we can place an end to political abuses at the polls, rather than through revolution.
God bless you and yours on this July 4th!
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
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.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
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:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
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.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1 Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2 North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3 Massachusetts:
John Hancock Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4 Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5 New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6 New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
[1] Ebru News/AP, (March 28, 2008), Ebru News web-site, Barack Obama’s Famous Relatives, retrieved July 3, 2012, from http://news.ebru.tv/en/4355
The President who campaigned on hope and change, has steadfastly refused the opportunity to unify the country, to show respect for our heritage and our people, or to attempt to bridge the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Instead, he has given us 2nd rate theater.
This comment was made before the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:
“…we don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they got to sit in back. (Laughter.)”[i]
How can we doubt the unifying power of these words. This is indeed, change we can believe in.
* * *
Reason #17
No Solutions – We Just “Don’t Like Yours”
As Obama talks about intractable Republicans and his determination to work around, rather than with and through Congress in a bipartisan fashion, small debates continue to play out. Some – like this one with Republican Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Democrat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner seem to show a combination of serious effort, theater and condescension.
In the following exchange, Rep. Ryan and Secretary Geithner seemed in agreement on some issues, seemed to somehow acknowledge the expertise and savvy of the other, but while it appeared Ryan was actually looking for answers, Geithner seemed satisfied to blame the Bush Administration, lay out what they apparently see as an insurmountable problem, with 10,000 Americans retiring each day, and in a pretty cavalier fashion, admit that they have no solutions – they just don’t like the Ryan plan.
Paul Ryan: “…Our Government is making promises to Americans, that it has no way of accounting for them. And so you’re saying, yeah we’re stabilizing it, but we’re not fixing it in the long run. That means we’re just going to keep lying to people. We’re going to keep all these empty promises going. So what we’re saying is – in order to avert a debt crisis – I mean, you’re the Treasury Secretary, of all p… If we can’t make good on our bonds in the future, who’s going to invest in our Country? We do not want to have a debt crisis and so it comes down to confidence and trajectory. Do we have confidence that we’re getting our fiscal situation under control? That we’re preventing the debt from getting at these catastrophic levels – and if you go back to the preceding chart – Number 13 – you’re showing that you have no plan to get this debt under control…”
Timothy Geithner: “…You were right to say we’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.[ii]
* * *
Your Turn
Do you know a Reason why Barack Obama should not be elected President? Can you tie that Reason to something specific and document it with a credible source? If so, share it in the Reply box at the end of this page. Working together, let’s set a goal of 10,000 Reasons – and when we have them, let’s share them with the GOP!!! Make your voice heard. Check our our “What do YOU Think” page.
[ii] Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary, broadcast on CSPAN 3 and downloaded to YouTube by “TGRRFG” (Feb. 17, 2012), Timothy Geithner: We don’t have a solution, we just don’t, retrieved March 8, 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R27zXCHXK1s
our nation’s Founders, seems to have expanded his own view of Presidential power since taking that office. His new line of reasoning says:
Our Free 50 