Posted on 04/11/2010 5:19:36 PM PDT by STARWISE
Despite being an open critic during his campaign of former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush’s frequent use of executive orders and signing statements, Obama will now go back on yet another campaign promise and take over the role of decider-in-chief by laying down his own authoritarian decrees.
Frustrated by the failure to get health care reform and cap and trade bills through Congress, the Obama administration will whip up a fresh batch of executive orders and presidential signing statements to effectively shape its owns laws and progress its own agenda.
“With much of his legislation agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” reported The New York Times.
The Obama presidency has barely hit the one-year mark and has already issued nearly 50 of his own executive orders on a wide variety of issues. He may even be well on his way to surpassing Bush, who ended his two terms as president with a stock of 289 executive orders.
“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, in The New York Times article.
Just this week, ABC News reported the president will issue an executive order to create the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to look into national debt solutions. Even though the Senate defeated a move in Congress to establish this very kind of committee, the president is taking it upon himself to create one anyway.
Another example of the presidents’ willingness to toss his executive weight around was seen in his attempts to pressure the Senate to confirm 27 presidential nominations, which were stalled by Republicans. The president promised to use his power of recess appointment to bring in his nominations while the Senate is away, thus undermining a responsibility vested in Congress.
The Obama administration’s more decisive approach toward governing is undoubtedly made to counteract the growing force of opposition toward the policies of the president, Congress and government in general by the American people.
Executive orders only serves those who seek to further establish a strong executive, something that should be quite incompatible with a constitutional republic like ours.
Executive orders are a danger to our constitutional system of government and their use has traditionally resulted in undermining our liberties by those who abuse them.
Executive orders do have a logical use that if kept inside the limit of simply directing those individuals within the executive branch to do their job more effectively and constitutionally. It’s when these orders venture outside the realm of the executive branch that it becomes a problem.
This “forget Congress” mentality has plagued many administrations for countless decades. While executive orders can result in good policies like Abraham Lincolns’ Emancipation Proclamation, it can also result in blemish’s on America’s history, like Franklin Roosevelt’s Order of Internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Contrary to modern political thought, the presidency was intended to have a very limited and restricted role in the legislation process. If Congress gives the president a bill he doesn’t agree with or deems unconstitutional, he would only need to veto it, but Congress can still override him.
The Founding Fathers didn’t draft the Constitution with a central leader with extensive power in mind. Their experience of living under the rule of a despotic king fueled their attempts to prevent a tyrannical centralized government from taking hold here.
Article I, Section I of the Constitution read quite clear when it states: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”
Only the legislative branch, not the executive branch, can craft laws; end of story.
The nature of the presidency and its expanding power has been evolving more and more with each passing administration. It’s just unfortunate Obama will continue to follow in the steps of his power-grabbing predecessors.
I think you may be right. I believe that Bush had some of his executive orders revoked by President Obama. I just can’t believe that the President can do this. I mean I don’t praise President Bush for his 280 Executive Orders. I don’t care if it took him eight years...that is too many. President Obama has had 50 in one year...if he is president, he will have signed approximately 400 if he keeps up his signing. I say do away with Executive Orders for all Presidents.
Yes it reminds me of President Bush in the same predicament. Can you imagine that we had the majority for SIX years and he got nothing done. It is stunning but it must be very difficult to get things done...that could be a good thing. lol.
Well, it was a nice try.
Do over.
CIRCA Sept 15, 2009 A SHOCKING DISPLAY OF OBAMA'S THIRST FOR POWER
FOX News' Judge Napolitano notes: if implemented, the unconstitutional proposals Obama urged in his Sept 2009 speech to Wall Street will amount to a final coup d’état by banksters, their technocrats and enforcers, at the Federal Reserve (*the privately-held bankster cartel that masquerades as a government agency).
Obama's "reforms" would install a dictatorial regulatory power controlled by international bankers over the entire US economy — down to the local grocer and hot dog vendor on the corner.
It will control our lives down to the smallest detail. It will require us to ask permission for the most mundane and routine of financial transactions. IT MUST BE BE RESISTED AT ALL COSTS. VIDEO LINK AVAILABLE Judge Andrew Napolitano On Obama/Bankster Takeover
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.