Skip to comments.Rule of Man vs. Rule of Law Ė President Obama is a free manís worst nightmare
Posted on 02/22/2012 8:19:29 AM PST by Starman417
...I cover this basic Constitutional information simply to contrast it with actual actions of the current occupant of the White House. Our Constitutional Professor in Chief is either ignorant of the Constitution or simply feels like it does not apply to him. Regardless of the cause, today in the United States we are very much moving towards a Rule of Man and away from the Rule of Law.
Really? Some examples please
There is the takeover of Chrysler. In a typical bankruptcy the secured debtholders get first dibs on the companys assets. That is the way the law is written and that is the basis upon which secured lending takes place. President Obama threw out the rule of law and coerced Chryslers secured debtholders into accepting $.29 on the dollar while paying his friends at the UAW $.40 on the dollar for their unsecured obligations, eventually giving them 55% of the company.
No doubt lenders will henceforth think twice about committing their resources to borrowers given the fact that government can come in and arbitrarily adjust their contracts.
Then there is the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB made news last year by illegally seeking to decide for Boeing where it could invest its money. The lawlessness of the board didnt fall far from the tree... This January, President Obama, seeking to circumvent the Senates advise and consent role appointed 4 people to the NLRB via recess appointments despite the Senate being in pro-forma session. Pro-forma session? Certainly that must mean that the Senate was not really in session so no actual business could be done, right? Actually Not according to the President. Just the previous week he was so sure the pro-forma session was real that he signed into law the payroll tax extension bill that was passed during such as session. Either pro-forma sessions are in session, or not, but they cant be both. Its like being pregnant, one either is or isnt, you cant be both. This is a perfect example of Rule of Man vs. Rule of Law. Unfortunately for the United States the Rule of Obama supersedes the Constitution in that battle.
There are many others but the most egregious is of course Obamacare. The Constitution clearly does not give the federal government the right to force consumers to purchase anything; not healthcare not Twinkies, not tooth paste, not even green cars. Despite that, Obama and his Reid / Pelosi led Congress decided to pass a law that does just that purchase health insurance. If Uncle Sam has the right to force you to purchase health insurance under the threat of jail, then the Constitution becomes nothing but a relic of a once great nation that was once governed by the Rule of Law.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Very true! I have been saying the same thing-government is trending more towards rule of man instead of the Constitutional based rule of law.
For example, last year the EPA and Corps of Engineers issued “guidance” for the Clean Water Act in which the federal gov’t would declare all waters, intermittent streams, etc as “waters of the US” based on “significant nexus” to navigable rivers.
This violates, not only the Constitution,the principles of checks and balances, and representation of the people in the legislative branch, but also the Constitution of New Mexico and many other states. Congress failed in 2010 to enact this “waters of the US” legislation and the administration has attempted to enact it through so called “guidance”.
We can expect more of this and worse in the next four years if obama is re-elected.
Hear, hear! I agree. Fundamental to lawful USG.