Posted on 06/11/2014 9:01:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Barack Obama believes he is above the law.
That's because he is.
This week alone, Obama announced that he would unilaterally change student loan rules, allowing borrowers to avoid paying off more of their debt; he signaled that he would continue his non-enforcement of immigration law, even as thousands of children cross the border; he defended his non-disclosure of a terrorist swap to Congress.
And, he said, more such actions were in the offing. "I will keep doing whatever I can without Congress," Obama explained.
This is not just executive overreach. In many cases, Obama's exercise of authoritarian power is criminal. His executive branch is responsible for violations of the Arms Export Control Act in shipping weapons to Syria, the Espionage Act in Libya, and IRS law with regard to the targeting of conservative groups. His executive branch is guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Benghazi and in the Fast and Furious scandal, and bribery in its allocation of waivers in Obamacare and tax dollars in its stimulus spending. His administration is guilty of obstruction of justice and witness tampering. And yet nothing is done.
Impeachment, which has been suggested as a solution by many, is a non-starter. In the entire history of the republic, the House has impeached just 19 officials, and just eight were actually removed from office after Senate trial. Impeachment is a political solution to a criminal problem -- and politicians are far too fearful of blowback to use it as a tool in upholding law.
Thanks to presidential immunity and executive control of the Justice Department, there are no consequences to executive branch lawbreaking. And when it comes to presidential lawbreaking, the sitting president could literally strangle someone to death on national television and meet with no consequences. As Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School has written, "a sitting President is constitutionally immune from ordinary criminal prosecution -- state or federal."
So what can we do? We can tell Congress to delegate its power to check the executive branch. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act creates a broad capacity for prosecution of criminal conspiracies; it also provides for civil lawsuits against such conspiracies, turning American citizens into, as the Supreme Court puts it, "'private attorneys general' on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate." Minor changes to the law should allow citizens to sue federal officials within the executive branch under RICO, unmasking criminal enterprises within the Obama administration and future administrations.
The checks and balances of the Constitution have failed. The result has been, for a century, the nearly unchecked growth of the power of the executive branch. That growth has created an executive tyranny, unanswerable and inescapable under law. Our legislators have proved themselves too cowardly to fight back using the tools at their disposal. They are obviously happy delegating their power to the executive branch. Now it's time for them to delegate their power to the people.
Even if there were legal consequences for doing this you could bet Eric Holder would do nothing, the MSM would say nothing and the GOP leadership would be cowering in the corner.
Our brilliant founders predicted this.
The next phase, historically is lawlessness among the citizenry. Legal compliance becomes impossible and discriminatory enforcement of laws leads to anarchy. Governments become powerless as their authority is ignored. But this starts at local levels and is either supported or fought by the states. The Fed either gives up on their quest for control or militarizes enforcement. At that point state government have to “pick a side”. Will they defend their own state citizens or allow the fed to police their own state?
Example scenario: An insurance company refuses to follow Obamacare and starts selling policies to individuals that they can afford. The Fed works to pull their license and get plans (paid for plans) cancelled. The company ignores courts order to cease and desist. Warrants issued for executives. Does the state allow the FBI to arrest a CEO? Or do they provide security and legal support? Do other companies and states follow suit?
Before you consider how preposterous this is, imagine a company that is trying to survive (presumably after helping to create the weapon that is killing them) in a legal puzzle where the law is muddle by letters, whims and selective enforcement. If an insurance company gets wise to the fact that the laws and regulations are now meaningless and unenforceable by precedent, why wouldn’t they make a business decision to “go rogue” as a last resort? Eventually, they will be in a place where they have nothing to lose.
Obviously the example scenario does not consider that the government is now and will increase the “bailouts” until they completely own the insurance industry. Dependency turns industry into slaves of the fed just as it turns citizens.
"Oh, Lord. Please don't let him strangle me next."
This is how dictators stay in power. Are we there yet?
"Oh, Lord. Please don't let him strangle me next."
This is how dictators stay in power. Are we there yet?
All that’s needed is for a congressional ‘leader’ stand up and announce that Obama’s orders are illegal and do not have to be followed.
`GSL’s, or guaranteed student loans, are guaranteed by the federal government. But the federal government doesn’t pay for any shortages due to vote-pandering on the part of this jerk.
You and I do.
So he basically sold out American taxpayers trying to win some youth votes for his party.
Again.
But just as Virginians saw-through Cantor, young people working two lousy part-time jobs ...
A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to a respondant claiming some delegated power, and filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, to hold a hearing within 3 to 20 days, depending on the distance of the respondant to the court, to present proof of his authority to execute his claimed powers. If the court finds the proof insufficient, or if the court fails to hold the hearing, the respondant must cease to exercise the power. If the power is to hold an office, he must vacate the office.Obama claims the power to make law. This is not about his right to hold the office. That's moot. He's holding the office.The writ is unlike a petition or motion to show cause, because the burden of proof is on the respondant, not on the demandant.
(Emphasis mine.)
Take the senate first. The the day after the senate is sworn in, impeach and remove. They will have 2 years before the election to slough off the media slaughter.
Why wait? Why not have it in progress?
We have no guarantee of taking the Senate and no guarantee of a conviction.
He is above the law because SCOTUS, Congress and We the People have allowed him to be.
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.