Our Country's Power-Mad, Constitution-Ignoring CEO
The dismaying thing is that nobody seems to care as long as that header isn't describing George W. Bush.
Jonathan Turley blogs:
Recently, a bizarre scene unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives that would have shocked the framers of the Constitution. In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he had decided to go it alone in areas where Congress refused to act to his satisfaction. In a system of shared powers, one would expect an outcry or at least stony silence when a president promised to circumvent the legislative branch. Instead, many senators and representatives erupted in rapturous applause; they seemed delighted at the notion of a president assuming unprecedented and unchecked powers at their expense.Last week, Obama underlined what this means for our system: The administration unilaterally increased the transition time for individuals to obtain the level of insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. There is no statutory authority for the change -- simply the raw assertion of executive power.
The United States is at a constitutional tipping point: The rise of an uber presidency unchecked by the other two branches.
This massive shift of authority threatens the stability and functionality of our tripartite system of checks and balances. To be sure, it did not begin with the Obama administration. The trend has existed for decades, and President George W. Bush showed equal contempt for the separation of powers. However, it has accelerated at an alarming rate under Obama. Of perhaps greater concern is the fact that the other two branches appear passive, if not inert, in the face of expanding executive power.
King Obama "has shown similar unilateral inclinations in other areas":
• He asked Congress to change the law to exempt certain classes of immigrants -- particularly children -- who are in the U.S. illegally from deportation. Congress refused to pass the so-called Dream Act, but Obama proceeded to order agencies to effectively guarantee the very same changes.• The administration ordered all U.S. attorneys to stop prosecuting nonviolent drug crime defendants who would be subject to what Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. called draconian mandatory minimum sentences. The new rule effectively negates sentencing provisions set by Congress.
• Obama opposed the No Child Left Behind Act and in effect nullified it through waivers of his own making.
• For years, the Wire Act was interpreted to mean that Internet gambling was prohibited, which some states and businesses opposed. The Obama administration declared the act would now be treated as having the inverse meaning.
Paul Bloom wrote about how people give their party a pass in The Atlantic, in "The War on Reason":
Most of us know nothing about constitutional law, so it's hardly surprising that we take sides in the Obamacare debate the way we root for the Red Sox or the Yankees. Loyalty to the team is what matters. A set of experiments run by the Stanford psychologist Geoffrey Cohen illustrates this principle perfectly. Subjects were told about a proposed welfare program, which was described as being endorsed by either Republicans or Democrats, and were asked whether they approved of it. Some subjects were told about an extremely generous program, others about an extremely stingy program, but this made little difference. What mattered was party: Democrats approved of the Democratic program, and Republicans, the Republican program. When asked to justify their decision, however, participants insisted that party considerations were irrelevant; they felt they were responding to the program's objective merits. This appears to be the norm. The Brown psychologist Steven Sloman and his colleagues have found that when people are called upon to justify their political positions, even those that they feel strongly about, many are unable to point to specifics. For instance, many people who claim to believe deeply in cap and trade or a flat tax have little idea what these policies actually mean.So, yes, if you want to see people at their worst, press them on the details of those complex political issues that correspond to political identity and that cleave the country almost perfectly in half.
Here's how you can tell if something is wrong, even when your tribe does it:
The progs seem to think they'll control the federal government forever. But some day, a non-prog will sit in the White House. What happens when he/she deems the IRS to be shut down? That the EPA rules and regs to be non-operational?
Oh, I forgot: racist! bigot! homophobe!
Now, in defense of the courts, they try very hard to not get into the middle of pissing matches between Congress and the White House. Unless one of them brings suit against the other.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 10, 2014 7:25 AM
At least when George W. Bush was president, the media held him accountable.
Trust at March 10, 2014 8:32 AM
Several years ago, comparisons were made on the Internet between Ted Kaczynski's "manifesto" and Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth". The challenge was to see if you could tell the difference between quotes lifted from each work.
Now, here's the rub: although the intent of the exercise was to illustrate how ridiculous some of Al Gore's assertions were, the actual demonstration was that even the Unabomber could be correct about some things.
We are so used to crediting celebrity that we forget to apply the light of reason to the things that they say.
Hey, if you're a fan of the current President, say this out loud:
George Bush is not in office any more.
It's your guy's turn to actually demonstrate all those stellar qualities you've been claiming - and yes, I know that Congress actually has many of the duties a President is credited for, and that you often ignored that in accusing GWB.
Remember: two wrongs don't make a right. Prior practice does not make right. Those are fallacies.
Radwaste at March 10, 2014 8:33 AM
The thought has occurred to me that one reason we exhibit so much lawlessness from our police and prosecutors these days is because they have Washington setting a bad example for them. The "might makes right" attitude has been present in our capital for a while now, and a lot of it seems to have spread both to lower levels of government and to the general population. The attitude towards law these days isn't that law constitutes the rules by which an orderly society conducts itself. Rather, law is just a substitue for weaponry; it's something you use to harm your opponent, and the more of it you can arm yourself with, the better.
Cousin Dave at March 10, 2014 11:46 AM
One thing I have noticed is that in my dealings with government offices, they have become less and less accountable for any kind of work product.
Lines are longer at the post office. DFAS has been almost totally unresponsive to inquiries about buying back military time. No one ever seems to return emails, or phone calls.
It is like no one believes that keeping their job actually depends on them doing anything for the tax payer.
It reminds me of the way the civil service behaved in Germany in the 80s. We (the military) were clearly there for their convenience, and not the other way around.
Isab at March 10, 2014 4:40 PM
Congress actually held a hearing on this:
If you actually listen to Turley's testimony he even says he likes Obama's idea, but disagrees with how he's getting there.
Jim P. at March 10, 2014 6:01 PM
Ah, but will he make the trains run on time?
Charles at March 10, 2014 9:38 PM
Never thought I'd say this where Obama was concerned, but of the four items cited that he's doing unilaterally, I like three of them.
Rex Little at March 10, 2014 11:36 PM
What if Bush was doing the same things? Would you still like them?
What about the changes to dates in Obamacare?
Obama is the Executive Branch of the government. The root of executive is execute:
Congress passes the laws and the president is constitutionally obligated and required to enforce those laws.
He can't just pick and choose or significantly change the enforcement of the laws just because he doesn't like them.
Jim P. at March 11, 2014 8:16 AM
I suspect this may come back to bite the Dems in the ass.
Their nuclear option already has boomeranged back when several vulnerable Dems were forced to vote yes on the nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division.
Ordinarily Republicans would have filibustered this nomination, and it would have never come to a vote.
Isab at March 11, 2014 8:29 AM
Doesn't matter if you like them or not. If they're usurping power from another branch of the government, that sets a bad precedent and enables this or future presidents to grab even more power.
Remember, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
Conan the Grammarian at March 11, 2014 10:39 AM
"Their nuclear option already has boomeranged back when several vulnerable Dems were forced to vote yes on the nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division."
Even more to th point, if filibuster and cloture were still in place, the Democrats would not have pushed that nomination to begin with. It was the elimination of cloture that made them think they could throw a bone to the far-left portion of their base with that nomination. Now, as Isab points out, a lot of vulnerable Democrat congressmen are going to have to answer for it on the campaign trail.
Cousin Dave at March 11, 2014 10:46 AM
You might've noticed that the automatically generated ad at the header of this webpage is "GOP attacking working families".
Apparently, not extending unemployment benefits for an indefinite period of time – read "forever" – is now an "attack".
Radwaste at March 11, 2014 5:09 PM
A great reason to elect a Republican is that the media will hold him to enforcing the law and will complain when he oversteps his authority.
Andrew M Garland at March 11, 2014 5:40 PM
Leave a comment