* * *
For all the hand-wringing about the threat to liberty and constitutional government posed by the major party presidential candidates, there is little discussion of how this threat is due to the political class’s long history of supporting expanded presidential power.
* I REMARK UPON IT CONSTANTLY.
There is also little talk of how the imperial presidency is just as much a creation of Congress as it is of power-hungry presidents.
* AGAIN... I REMARK UPON IT CONSTANTLY.
Since war is the health of the state, it is not surprising that presidential power expanded in tandem with the expansion of the warfare state. Perhaps the best, and most terrifying, example of how “national security” has been used to justify giving the president dictatorial powers is the Defense Production Act.
This law, which is regularly renewed with large bipartisan congressional majorities, grants the president broad powers over the economy. For example, it explicitly authorizes the president to tell manufacturers what products to make, impose wage and price controls, “manage" labor relations, control the use of natural resources, and even allocate credit. All the president need do to exercise these powers is declare a national emergency.
* YEP. I'M AWARE.
The Defense Production Act is hardly the only example of congress's complicity in the growth of presidential power. For example, Congress rarely, if ever, insists that the president seek a formal declaration of war before commencing military action. When I attempted to force Congress to vote on a declaration of war against Iraq, a prominent member of Congress, who was considered a constitutional scholar, told me that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war was an "anachronism."
* NOTICE PAUL DOESN'T MENTION THE "PROMINENT MEMBER'S" NAME.
Many neoconservatives claim that the president’s status as commander in chief gives him the inherent authority to take whatever actions he deems necessary for national security. This turns a limited grant of power intended to preserve civilian control of the military into an unlimited authorization for military control of civilians.
* HEY... YOU'RE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE, DR. PAUL!
Presidents have hardly limited their abuse to foreign policy. Ironically, many conservatives who (correctly) oppose abuses of presidential authority in the domestic sphere support giving the president unlimited authority over “national security.” These conservatives fail to realize unfettered presidential discretion in foreign policy will inevitably lead to presidential usurpation of Congress’s authority in domestic matters.
* DUH! (AGAIN... PREACHING TO THE CHOIR, DR. PAUL!)
Modern presidents routinely use executive orders to create new laws or rewrite existing statutes.
* OBAMA CERTAINLY DOES.
President George W. Bush regularly usurped congressional authority via signing statements listing the parts of congressionally-passed legislation he would refuse to enforce.
* UM... SIGNING STATEMENTS ARE A BIT DIFFERENT. SIGNING STATEMENTS ARE INTENDED (WERE INTENDED) SIMPLY TO PROVIDE CONTEXT REGARDING FUTURE COURT CHALLENGES. (SURELY DR. PAUL IS AWARE OF THE DISTINCTION...)
In his 2014 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama actually bragged about his intention to use his “pen and phone" to go around Congress via executive orders and regulations.
* YES. (FAR DIFFERENT FROM BUSH'S SIGNING STATEMENTS; AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, I'M NOT EXACTLY A BUSH FAN - AND CERTAINLY NOT A BUSH APOLOGIST.)
Some members of Congress do criticize presidential usurpation of congressional authority. However, few members of Congress raise concerns about presidential overreach when the White House is occupied by a member of their political party. This suggests that most legislators are more concerned with partisanship than with protecting their constitutional authority.
As long as people expect the president to provide economic and personal security, the presidency will be a threat to liberty regardless of who holds the office. Therefore, instead of obsessing over whether demagogue A is less dangerous than demagogue B, we must focus on spreading the ideas of liberty.
* WRONG. WE MUST STOP HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE IN SO DOING SHE'D LOCK IN LEFTIST CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT AND THUS THE END OF ANY SEMBLANCE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.
* EVEN IF TRUMP IS A DEMAGOGUE, CLINTON IS A LEFTIST. AGAIN... ELECT TRUMP AND BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENTS - AS WELL AS THE SUPREME COURT, THE MEDIA, AND ACADEMIA - WILL COOPERATE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT TO ENSURE TRUMP STAYS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF HILLARY IS ELECTED... SHE'LL ENSURE THE SUPREME COURT GOES LEFT AND EVEN IF THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS OPPOSE HER (WHEN THE RECORD IS CLEAR THEY DIDN'T OPPOSE OBAMA - AT LEAST NOT EFFECTIVELY) THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS - ALONG WITH ENOUGH REPUBLICANS - WILL BACK WHATEVER POWER GRABS SHE ENGAGES IN.
* FOLKS... RE-READ THE ABOVE COMMENTARY - THAT LAST PARAGRAPH I WROTE. THINK ABOUT IT. I'M RIGHT.
Only when a critical mass of the people demand it will we return to limited constitutional government.
* ARE YOU F--KING STUPID? SERIOUSLY? ARE YOU SENILE? THERE IS NO "CRITICAL MASS" FOR FREEDOM. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. WHAT THERE IS IS A NEAR CRITICAL MASS FOR SOCIALISM AND LEFTIST DICTATORSHIP AND EACH DAY THE LEFT - VIA EXECUTIVE POWER AND A COMPLAINT CONGRESS - LITERALLY "IMPORTS" MORE LEFTISTS (SOCIALIST LEANING AT THE VERY LEAST) INTO THE BODY POLITIC WITH THE GOAL BEING TO NATURALIZE THEM... GIVE THEM CITIZENSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS... AND FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S NUMERICAL ADVANTAGE.
The growth of the liberty movement gives me hope that we will soon see a day when our peace, prosperity, and liberty is not threatened by the results of the presidential, or any other, election.
* I WONDER IF PAUL IS A DRUGGIE... OR JUST INSANE? "GROWTH...???" RYAN IS HOUSE SPEAKER. MCCONNELL IS SENATE MAJORITY LEADER. CRUZ LOST TO TRUMP. PAUL LOST TO CRUZ.
* WHAT PLANET IS THIS FRIGGIN' LUNATIC LIVING ON?
* ONE MORE TIME: THERE'S GONNA BE AN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. IT'S TRUMP vs. CLINTON. IF CLINTON WINS... AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT IS GONE.
* ONE MORE TIME: IF MCCAIN COULDN'T WIN IN 2008... IF ROMNEY COULDN'T WIN IN 2012... IF BUSH LOST THE POPULAR VOTE IN 2000... IF CLINTON WAS FIRST ELECTED AND THEN RE-ELECTED IN 1992 AND 1996 RESPECTIVELY... WHERE IS THIS HUGE "FREEDOM MOVEMENT" THAT PAUL IS BABBLING ABOUT AND WHAT MAKES HIM THINK THAT AFTER FURTHER MILLIONS OF "IMPORTED" DEMOCRATIC VOTERS HIT THE ROLLS HIS "FREEDOM MOVEMENT" IS GOING TO OVERTAKE AND OVERWHELM AN EVEN MORE SKEWED ANTI-FREEDOM DEMOGRAPHIC REALITY?!