Skip to comments.Senator Rand Paul on Obama: 'I'm against having a king'
Posted on 01/16/2013 11:33:21 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
"I'm against having a king," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said of U.S. President Barack Obama in an interview to the Christian Broadcasting Network. Paul expressed his apprehension on the president's threats to impose gun control through executive orders. "I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over, and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that's someone who wants to act like a king or monarch," Paul said.
"Suffering rule," wherein the people of a nation suffer through a decision made unilaterally by the ruler - whether he is elected, or not, was a big sticking point in for the original framers of the Declaration of Independence. To equate President Obama with kings and monarchs is a realistic description that unitary government is a major problem.
This is true if the president has to stand for election every four years and even when he's limited to two terms in office.
The practice of bypassing Congress is an aggressive method of rule without representation. In a left-handed way, the current mood for swift, "efficient," all-powerful centralized government is a denial of that principle.
The chasm of principle that separates Rand Paul and someone such as Harry Reid is very much desired in a free society. That difficulty defines the boundaries of what the federal government is supposed to be doing and battles over the extension of those boundaries should be succinct and to the point. The American people deserve no less.
In practice, what becomes a "king?" It's not the means by which he takes the throne, or the length of time he remains there. The threat of punishment at the ballot box in four years is not a sufficient check on executive power, especially for a "lame duck" President...
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Anything "real" and he would have allies in the house already drawing up impeachment articles.
“One needs only to point to our friends in North Africa, Egypt. Working hard to ensure the first democratically president was won in a free election, Mohamed Morsi has given himself unprecedented power over others in Congress. The analogy between Morsi and Obama is a highly cogent one.One needs only to point to our friends in North Africa, Egypt. Working hard to ensure the first democratically president was won in a free election, Mohamed Morsi has given himself unprecedented power over others in Congress. The analogy between Morsi and Obama is a highly cogent one.”
More than they know.
Rubio and Paul, amnesty mongers, should shut up
That disqualifies them from talking about anything ever?
Barack Obama is more like a marxist dictator as Stalin was, Chavez etc. not a king well maybe a queen
Get your head in reality.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Weapon Makers See Danger in Cooperating Over Safety
Gun makers see a danger in working with the government that can be summed up in one name: Smith & Wesson.
BY Gary Fields
Ben Kesling and James R. Hagerty contributed to this article.
The article is only available to subscribers.
In summary the writer speaks to the fact that a few gun makers have cooperated with the government and have been basically bankrupted when gun owners chose to no longer do business with them.
Here are a couple of quotes from the article:
“Led by gun-rights groups, dealers stopped carrying Smith & Wessons products, and buyers melted away. the company was eventually sold for a fraction of what Tomkins initially paid.
“If you think you can buy your peace with your enemy you are sadly mistaken and you will suffer a severe backlash from the consumer, one senior industry executive said.”
Since the revolution, the various presidents have slowly and gradually increased their powers, to the point where the office has pretty much become an “imperial presidency”, tempered only by the hesitation of individuals in the office to be more tyrannical. This is an intolerable situation.
Therefore, what Rand Paul should do is compose a list of ways in which the power of the *office* of the presidency should be curtailed by congress, to bring it more in line with a balance between the legislative and judicial branches.
This list should include:
1) That presidential signing statements, the most clearly unconstitutional act of presidents, are thereafter nullified, having no force in law, and the executive branch is enjoined from following them.
2) That the Supreme Court has original authority to review presidential executive orders, memorandums, directives, executive privileges and proclamations for constitutionality, if either house of congress requests such a review.
3) That the appointment of Czars and recess appointments exists only until the senate reconvenes, then the appointees must appear before the senate for confirmation, or they will be dismissed.
4) That all foreign agreements that are binding on the United States, or modifications to existing treaties and obligations, must be approved by the senate, and have no force in law until they are.
5) The full restoration of the Posse Comitatus Act and the War Powers Act.
6) That the president must delegate many of his ceremonial duties, that congress requests that the State of the Union once again be only in writing, and that cabinet officers be compelled to testify before the senate and the house on at least an annual basis.