Posted on 02/14/2013 7:35:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
From his very first state-of-the-union utterance last night, associating himself with President Kennedy, President Obama got it wrong, and it was mostly downhill from there: “51 years ago,” he began, “John F. Kennedy declared to this chamber that ‘the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress.’” Great alliteration; bad constitutionalism.
Yes, in a very narrow sense the Constitution makes the political branches partners for progress. But it also, most definitely, makes the branches, and those with authority within them, rivals for power. Indeed, throughout the Federalist Papers we learn how the Constitution pits power against power in order to limit power – and government itself.
But limited government was the furthest thing from the president’s mind last night. As Senator Rubio responded, Obama’s “solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more, and spend more.” Even the Washington Post subtitled its editorial this morning, “Obama’s wish list.”
What then is the narrow sense in which the Constitution makes the political branches “partners for progress”? That takes us back to first principles, which Obama seems not to have encountered when he studied law at Harvard or taught the Constitution at the University of Chicago. The purpose of the political branches is to refine and run the institutional and legal structure the Constitution establishes. That will then enable private individuals and the private organizations they create to flourish.
And in a free society, that mainly is how “progress” comes about, not through government but through private initiative. For Obama, however, progress is mainly for government to engineer, through a vast array of manipulative regulations and government “investments.”
Not since FDR have we had a president with so little appreciation for our basic constitutional system, or so little understanding of basic economics.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Okay, so what else is new?
Has the Narcissistic Little Marxist Bastard ever been right about anything?
(rhetorical question alert)
close enough for government work
Next.
“and then proposes an increase in the minimum wage,”
The minimum wage is not about the poor. Every study and analysis, including those done by the government, show that every increase causes more unemployment. Raising the minimum wage is all about helping the unions get more money. Almost every union contract has a clause pegging their wages to some multiple of the minimum wage. Increase the minimum wage and almost every union member gets an instant raise.
So little appreciation for our basic constitutional system, or so little understanding of basic economics.
Oh he understands them alright he want’s to CHANGE them to his socialist ideas,and his party are doing all they can to help him.
“Oh he understands them alright he want’s to CHANGE them to his socialist ideas,and his party are doing all they can to help him.”
Don’t overlook the fact that he is being aided and abetted by some highly placed members of the GOP as well. Start with Boehner, McConnell, McCain, Graham and go on down the list. We really need to do some major house-keeping in the GOP or we’re finished.
Hence my statement - he says one thing (help the poor build the economy) and then does the opposite.
We really need to do some major house-keeping in the GOP or we’re finished.
With the low turn out in the last election I wouldn’t place much hope on that,people are to lazy to take action.
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.